On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 02:49:02PM +0200, Iuliana Prodan (OSS) wrote: > From: Iuliana Prodan <[email protected]> > > Firmwares that do not use mailbox communication > (e.g., the hello_world sample) leave priv->tx_ch > as NULL. The current suspend logic unconditionally > sends RP_MBOX_SUSPEND_SYSTEM, which is invalid without > an initialized TX channel. > > Detect the no_mailboxes case early and skip sending > the suspend message. Instead, proceed directly to > the runtime PM suspend path, which is the correct > behavior for firmwares that cannot respond to mailbox > requests.
Please use the allotted 75 characters of width for your commit message. > > Signed-off-by: Iuliana Prodan <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > index f11662f9a12f..fc0470aa72c1 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > @@ -1308,6 +1308,15 @@ static int imx_dsp_suspend(struct device *dev) > if (rproc->state != RPROC_RUNNING) > goto out; > > + /* > + * No channel available for sending messages; > + * indicates no mailboxes present, so trigger PM runtime suspend > + */ > + if (!priv->tx_ch) { > + dev_err(dev, "No initialized mbox tx channel\n"); Commit message and comment above says this is "normal" behavior, dev_err() indicates that it's not. Should this be a dev_info()? That said, it's still a message every time you suspend, so perhaps even omitting the print (or a dev_dbg()) makes more sense? Regards, Bjorn > + goto out; > + } > + > reinit_completion(&priv->pm_comp); > > /* Tell DSP that suspend is happening */ > -- > 2.34.1 >
