- Openamp-rp - lists.openampproject.org

[OpenAMP/libmetal] 16493b: lib: system: remove xlnx BSP specific code

by Tanmay

Branch: refs/heads/main Home: https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal Commit: 16493b179fb480e6ff5d9378cf24b8b78859fd7f https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/commit/16493b179fb480e6ff5d9378cf24b8b7… Author: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> Date: 2025-07-29 (Tue, 29 Jul 2025) Changed paths: M lib/system/freertos/sys.h R lib/system/freertos/template/CMakeLists.txt R lib/system/freertos/template/sys.c R lib/system/freertos/template/sys.h R lib/system/freertos/xlnx/CMakeLists.txt R lib/system/freertos/xlnx/irq.c R lib/system/freertos/xlnx/sys.c R lib/system/freertos/xlnx/sys.h M lib/system/generic/sys.h R lib/system/generic/template/CMakeLists.txt R lib/system/generic/template/sys.c R lib/system/generic/template/sys.h R lib/system/generic/xlnx/CMakeLists.txt R lib/system/generic/xlnx/irq.c R lib/system/generic/xlnx/microblaze_generic/CMakeLists.txt R lib/system/generic/xlnx/microblaze_generic/sys.c R lib/system/generic/xlnx/sys.c R lib/system/generic/xlnx/sys.h R lib/system/generic/xlnx/sys_devicetree.h Log Message: ----------- lib: system: remove xlnx BSP specific code libmetal is abstraction layer and vendor specific code should not be maintained as part of libmetal. Instead common interfaces provided by libmetal should be implemented by vendor BSP in downstream repos. Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> To unsubscribe from these emails, change your notification settings at https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/settings/notifications

9 hours, 56 minutes

1
0
0 0

[OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference] 75c158: legacy_apps: zynqmp_r5: restore initial resources

by Tanmay

Branch: refs/heads/main Home: https://github.com/OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference Commit: 75c158b008d6d758c39870814dbf8a92cc084867 https://github.com/OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference/commit/75c158b008d6d758… Author: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> Date: 2025-07-23 (Wed, 23 Jul 2025) Changed paths: M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/helper.c M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/platform_info.c M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/rsc_table.c M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/rsc_table.h Log Message: ----------- legacy_apps: zynqmp_r5: restore initial resources Resource table can get corrupted during un-controlled reboot of host. This can cause crash when attach happens after reboot. Restore initial good version of resource table before re-creating virtio devices. As part of this, first the server takes the resource table snapshot to before any IPC events are in place to prevent this issue during system-init. Secondly helper.c will call get_resource_table so that the future call to restore_initial_rsc_table will have the resource set up. Otherwise the snapshot can still fail if the resource is not set up. Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky(a)amd.com> Commit: 29232c244a8ef3136205031f891c361fdfb44472 https://github.com/OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference/commit/29232c244a8ef313… Author: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> Date: 2025-07-23 (Wed, 23 Jul 2025) Changed paths: M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/linker_large_text.ld M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/linker_remote.ld M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/rsc_table.c M examples/legacy_apps/machine/zynqmp_r5/rsc_table.h Log Message: ----------- legacy_apps: zynqmp_r5: add rsc table metadata section During attach detach operation, resource table needs to be retrieved by host. In such case firmware is expected to provided metadata by host. This metadata is expected by firmware at the start address of shared memory beteween host and remote. Add padding to ensure no section overlap. Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah(a)amd.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky(a)amd.com> Compare: https://github.com/OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference/compare/49d74fec0b50...… To unsubscribe from these emails, change your notification settings at https://github.com/OpenAMP/openamp-system-reference/settings/notifications

6 days, 8 hours

1
0
0 0

[OpenAMP/libmetal] a19cfb: lib: system: linux: Remove redundant malloc'd addr...

by Huichun Feng

Branch: refs/heads/main Home: https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal Commit: a19cfb3ff3b23dd84043c660748f7892abe6029d https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/commit/a19cfb3ff3b23dd84043c660748f7892… Author: Huichun Feng <foxhoundsk.tw(a)gmail.com> Date: 2025-07-15 (Tue, 15 Jul 2025) Changed paths: M lib/system/linux/device.c Log Message: ----------- lib: system: linux: Remove redundant malloc'd addr release check As the code path suggests, the pointer, ldev, at this point, can be free'd directly w/o a check. Remove the redundant check. Signed-off-by: Huichun Feng <foxhoundsk.tw(a)gmail.com> To unsubscribe from these emails, change your notification settings at https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/settings/notifications

2 weeks

1
0
0 0

[OpenAMP/libmetal] fdc85e: lib: system: linux: Remove redundant memory validn...

by Huichun Feng

Branch: refs/heads/main Home: https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal Commit: fdc85ec742a03dc401167df4bffa49cae6ec8db5 https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/commit/fdc85ec742a03dc401167df4bffa49ca… Author: Fox Feng <foxhoundsk.tw(a)gmail.com> Date: 2025-07-15 (Tue, 15 Jul 2025) Changed paths: M lib/system/linux/device.c Log Message: ----------- lib: system: linux: Remove redundant memory validness check In the function prologue, "ldev" has already been assigned a malloc'd address, and a check has also been performed. Remove this redundant pointer validness check during each iteration. The second check was also inherently misplaced because the it was not enclosed in the malloc if-branch. Signed-off-by: Fox Feng <foxhoundsk.tw(a)gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Huichun Feng <foxhoundsk.tw(a)gmail.com> To unsubscribe from these emails, change your notification settings at https://github.com/OpenAMP/libmetal/settings/notifications

2 weeks

1
0
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/3/25 2:49 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 7/2/25 19:00, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> >> >> On 7/2/25 10:47 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/2/25 17:23, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/2/25 2:18 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/1/25 23:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/25 1:06 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/1/25 12:56 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 12:18 PM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 17:16, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tanmay, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >>>>>>>>>>>> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for >>>>>>>>>>>> boot >>>>>>>>>>>> recovery. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Few questions to better understand your use case. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you >>>>>>>>>>> generate a crash of the remote processor, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it >>>>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>>>> autoreboot independent from the Linux core? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver >>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>> reboot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will >>>>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>>>> coredump functionality as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some >>>>>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>>>>> crash handler ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >>>>>>>>>>>> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms >>>>>>>>>>>> are testing this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of >>>>>>>>>>> autoreboot >>>>>>>>>>> of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to >>>>>>>>>>> recover. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind >>>>>>>>>>> - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using >>>>>>>>>>> the NS >>>>>>>>>>> announcement mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify >>>>>>>>>> recovery >>>>>>>>>> progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might >>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>> introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for >>>>>>>>>> recovery to complete successfully. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess the rproc->clean_table contains a copy of the resource table >>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>> reapplied on attach, and the virtio devices should be re-probed, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> During the virtio device probe, the vdev status in the resource table is >>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>> to 7 when virtio is ready to communicate. Virtio should then call >>>>>>>>> rproc_virtio_notify() to inform the remote processor of the status update. >>>>>>>>> At this stage, your remoteproc driver should be able to send a mailbox >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> to inform the remote side about the recovery completion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I spot the problem now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux side: file: remoteproc_core.c >>>>>>>> rproc_attach_recovery >>>>>>>> __rproc_detach >>>>>>>> cleans up the resource table and re-loads it >>>>>>>> __rproc_attach >>>>>>>> stops and re-starts subdevices >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remote side: >>>>>>>> Remote re-boots after crash >>>>>>>> Detects crash happened previously >>>>>>>> notify crash to Linux >>>>>>>> (Linux is executing above flow meanwhile) >>>>>>>> starts creating virtio devices >>>>>>>> **rproc_virtio_create_vdev - parse vring & create vdev device** >>>>>>>> **rproc_virtio_wait_remote_ready - wait for remote ready** [1] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think Remote should wait on DRIVER_OK bit, before creating virtio devices. >>>>>>>> The temporary solution I implemented was to make sure vrings addresses are >>>>>>>> not 0xffffffff like following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> while(rsc->rpmsg_vring0.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY || >>>>>>>> rsc->rpmsg_vring1.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY) { >>>>>>>> usleep(100); >>>>>>>> metal_cache_invalidate(rsc, rproc->rsc_len); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Above works, but I think better solution is to change sequence where remote >>>>>>>> waits before creating virtio devices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sorry, I should have said, remote should wait before parsing and >>>>>>> assigning vrings to virtio device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/ >>>>>>>> blob/391671ba24840833d882c1a75c5d7307703b1cf1/lib/remoteproc/ >>>>>>>> remoteproc.c#L994 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually upon further checking, I think above code is okay. I see that >>>>>> wait_remote_ready is called before vrings are setup on remote fw side. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, during recovery time on remote side, somehow I still have to >>>>>> implement >>>>>> platform specific wait for vrings to setup correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> From linux side, DRIVER_OK bit is set before vrings are setup correctly. >>>>>> Because of that, when remote firmware sets up wrong vring addresses and then >>>>>> rpmsg channels are not created. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am investigating on this further. >>>>> >>>>> Do you reset the vdev status as requested by the virtio spec? >>>>> https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.3/csd01/virtio-v1.3-csd01.html… >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Arnaud >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I do. I am actually restoring deafult resource table on firmware side, which >>>> will set rpmsg_vdev status to 0. >>>> >>>> However, when printing vrings right before wait_remote_ready, I see vrings are >>>> not set correctly from linux side: >>>> >>>> `vring0 = 0xFFFFFFFF, vring1 = 0xFFFFFFFF` >>> >>> That makes sense if values corresponds to the initial values of the resource >>> table >>> rproc->clean_table should contain a copy of these initial values. >>> >>>> >>>> However, the rproc state was still moved to attach when checked from remoteproc >>>> sysfs. >>> >>> Does the rproc_handle_resources() is called before going back in attached state? >> >> You are right. I think __rproc_attach() isn't calling rproc_handle_resources(). >> >> But recovery is supported by other platforms so I think recovery should work >> without calling rproc_handle_resources(). > > Right. Having taken a deeper look at the code, it seems that there is an issue. > In rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_detach(), we clean the resource table without > calling rproc_resource_cleanup(). > > It seems to me that rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_detach() should not be called in > __rproc_detach() but rather in rproc_detach() after calling > rproc_resource_cleanup(). > > Arnaud, I can confirm above is correct. After moving rsc_table_on_detach out of __rproc_detach the recovery works. I will send patch to fix that when I add recovery support on AMD-Xilinx platform driver. Thank you so much for looking into this. Tanmay >> >> May be re-storing resource table from firmware side after reboot isn't a good >> idea. I will try without it. >> >>> >>>> >>>> `cat /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/state` >>>> attached >>>> >>>> Somehow the sync between remote fw and linux isn't right. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>

3 weeks

1
0
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/3/25 2:49 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 7/2/25 19:00, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> >> >> On 7/2/25 10:47 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/2/25 17:23, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/2/25 2:18 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/1/25 23:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/25 1:06 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/1/25 12:56 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 12:18 PM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 17:16, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tanmay, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >>>>>>>>>>>> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for >>>>>>>>>>>> boot >>>>>>>>>>>> recovery. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Few questions to better understand your use case. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you >>>>>>>>>>> generate a crash of the remote processor, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it >>>>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>>>> autoreboot independent from the Linux core? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver >>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>> reboot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will >>>>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>>>> coredump functionality as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some >>>>>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>>>>> crash handler ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >>>>>>>>>>>> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms >>>>>>>>>>>> are testing this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of >>>>>>>>>>> autoreboot >>>>>>>>>>> of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to >>>>>>>>>>> recover. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind >>>>>>>>>>> - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using >>>>>>>>>>> the NS >>>>>>>>>>> announcement mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify >>>>>>>>>> recovery >>>>>>>>>> progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might >>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>> introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for >>>>>>>>>> recovery to complete successfully. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess the rproc->clean_table contains a copy of the resource table >>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>> reapplied on attach, and the virtio devices should be re-probed, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> During the virtio device probe, the vdev status in the resource table is >>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>> to 7 when virtio is ready to communicate. Virtio should then call >>>>>>>>> rproc_virtio_notify() to inform the remote processor of the status update. >>>>>>>>> At this stage, your remoteproc driver should be able to send a mailbox >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> to inform the remote side about the recovery completion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I spot the problem now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linux side: file: remoteproc_core.c >>>>>>>> rproc_attach_recovery >>>>>>>> __rproc_detach >>>>>>>> cleans up the resource table and re-loads it >>>>>>>> __rproc_attach >>>>>>>> stops and re-starts subdevices >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remote side: >>>>>>>> Remote re-boots after crash >>>>>>>> Detects crash happened previously >>>>>>>> notify crash to Linux >>>>>>>> (Linux is executing above flow meanwhile) >>>>>>>> starts creating virtio devices >>>>>>>> **rproc_virtio_create_vdev - parse vring & create vdev device** >>>>>>>> **rproc_virtio_wait_remote_ready - wait for remote ready** [1] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think Remote should wait on DRIVER_OK bit, before creating virtio devices. >>>>>>>> The temporary solution I implemented was to make sure vrings addresses are >>>>>>>> not 0xffffffff like following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> while(rsc->rpmsg_vring0.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY || >>>>>>>> rsc->rpmsg_vring1.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY) { >>>>>>>> usleep(100); >>>>>>>> metal_cache_invalidate(rsc, rproc->rsc_len); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Above works, but I think better solution is to change sequence where remote >>>>>>>> waits before creating virtio devices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sorry, I should have said, remote should wait before parsing and >>>>>>> assigning vrings to virtio device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/ >>>>>>>> blob/391671ba24840833d882c1a75c5d7307703b1cf1/lib/remoteproc/ >>>>>>>> remoteproc.c#L994 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually upon further checking, I think above code is okay. I see that >>>>>> wait_remote_ready is called before vrings are setup on remote fw side. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, during recovery time on remote side, somehow I still have to >>>>>> implement >>>>>> platform specific wait for vrings to setup correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> From linux side, DRIVER_OK bit is set before vrings are setup correctly. >>>>>> Because of that, when remote firmware sets up wrong vring addresses and then >>>>>> rpmsg channels are not created. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am investigating on this further. >>>>> >>>>> Do you reset the vdev status as requested by the virtio spec? >>>>> https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.3/csd01/virtio-v1.3-csd01.html… >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Arnaud >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I do. I am actually restoring deafult resource table on firmware side, which >>>> will set rpmsg_vdev status to 0. >>>> >>>> However, when printing vrings right before wait_remote_ready, I see vrings are >>>> not set correctly from linux side: >>>> >>>> `vring0 = 0xFFFFFFFF, vring1 = 0xFFFFFFFF` >>> >>> That makes sense if values corresponds to the initial values of the resource >>> table >>> rproc->clean_table should contain a copy of these initial values. >>> >>>> >>>> However, the rproc state was still moved to attach when checked from remoteproc >>>> sysfs. >>> >>> Does the rproc_handle_resources() is called before going back in attached state? >> >> You are right. I think __rproc_attach() isn't calling rproc_handle_resources(). >> >> But recovery is supported by other platforms so I think recovery should work >> without calling rproc_handle_resources(). > > Right. Having taken a deeper look at the code, it seems that there is an issue. > In rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_detach(), we clean the resource table without > calling rproc_resource_cleanup(). > > It seems to me that rproc_reset_rsc_table_on_detach() should not be called in > __rproc_detach() but rather in rproc_detach() after calling > rproc_resource_cleanup(). > > Yes that sounds correct. It's long-weekend here in US. So, I will try this next week and update. Thanks, Tanmay >> >> May be re-storing resource table from firmware side after reboot isn't a good >> idea. I will try without it. >> >>> >>>> >>>> `cat /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/state` >>>> attached >>>> >>>> Somehow the sync between remote fw and linux isn't right. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>

3 weeks, 5 days

1
0
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/2/25 10:47 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 7/2/25 17:23, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> >> >> On 7/2/25 2:18 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/1/25 23:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/1/25 1:06 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/1/25 12:56 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/25 12:18 PM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/1/25 17:16, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Tanmay, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >>>>>>>>>> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for >>>>>>>>>> boot >>>>>>>>>> recovery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Few questions to better understand your use case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you >>>>>>>>> generate a crash of the remote processor, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it is an >>>>>>>>> autoreboot independent from the Linux core? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> reboot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will implement >>>>>>>> coredump functionality as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some >>>>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>>>> crash handler ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >>>>>>>>>> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other >>>>>>>>>> platforms >>>>>>>>>> are testing this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of >>>>>>>>> autoreboot >>>>>>>>> of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to >>>>>>>>> recover. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind >>>>>>>>> - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using the NS >>>>>>>>> announcement mechanism >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify >>>>>>>> recovery >>>>>>>> progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might >>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>> introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for >>>>>>>> recovery to complete successfully. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess the rproc->clean_table contains a copy of the resource table that is >>>>>>> reapplied on attach, and the virtio devices should be re-probed, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the virtio device probe, the vdev status in the resource table is >>>>>>> updated >>>>>>> to 7 when virtio is ready to communicate. Virtio should then call >>>>>>> rproc_virtio_notify() to inform the remote processor of the status update. >>>>>>> At this stage, your remoteproc driver should be able to send a mailbox >>>>>>> message >>>>>>> to inform the remote side about the recovery completion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think I spot the problem now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux side: file: remoteproc_core.c >>>>>> rproc_attach_recovery >>>>>> __rproc_detach >>>>>> cleans up the resource table and re-loads it >>>>>> __rproc_attach >>>>>> stops and re-starts subdevices >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Remote side: >>>>>> Remote re-boots after crash >>>>>> Detects crash happened previously >>>>>> notify crash to Linux >>>>>> (Linux is executing above flow meanwhile) >>>>>> starts creating virtio devices >>>>>> **rproc_virtio_create_vdev - parse vring & create vdev device** >>>>>> **rproc_virtio_wait_remote_ready - wait for remote ready** [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Remote should wait on DRIVER_OK bit, before creating virtio devices. >>>>>> The temporary solution I implemented was to make sure vrings addresses are >>>>>> not 0xffffffff like following: >>>>>> >>>>>> while(rsc->rpmsg_vring0.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY || >>>>>> rsc->rpmsg_vring1.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY) { >>>>>> usleep(100); >>>>>> metal_cache_invalidate(rsc, rproc->rsc_len); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> Above works, but I think better solution is to change sequence where remote >>>>>> waits before creating virtio devices. >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, I should have said, remote should wait before parsing and >>>>> assigning vrings to virtio device. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/ >>>>>> blob/391671ba24840833d882c1a75c5d7307703b1cf1/lib/remoteproc/ >>>>>> remoteproc.c#L994 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually upon further checking, I think above code is okay. I see that >>>> wait_remote_ready is called before vrings are setup on remote fw side. >>>> >>>> However, during recovery time on remote side, somehow I still have to implement >>>> platform specific wait for vrings to setup correctly. >>>> >>>> From linux side, DRIVER_OK bit is set before vrings are setup correctly. >>>> Because of that, when remote firmware sets up wrong vring addresses and then >>>> rpmsg channels are not created. >>>> >>>> I am investigating on this further. >>> >>> Do you reset the vdev status as requested by the virtio spec? >>> https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.3/csd01/virtio-v1.3-csd01.html… >>> >>> Regards, >>> Arnaud >>> >> >> Yes I do. I am actually restoring deafult resource table on firmware side, which >> will set rpmsg_vdev status to 0. >> >> However, when printing vrings right before wait_remote_ready, I see vrings are >> not set correctly from linux side: >> >> `vring0 = 0xFFFFFFFF, vring1 = 0xFFFFFFFF` > > That makes sense if values corresponds to the initial values of the resource table > rproc->clean_table should contain a copy of these initial values. > >> >> However, the rproc state was still moved to attach when checked from remoteproc >> sysfs. > > Does the rproc_handle_resources() is called before going back in attached state? You are right. I think __rproc_attach() isn't calling rproc_handle_resources(). But recovery is supported by other platforms so I think recovery should work without calling rproc_handle_resources(). May be re-storing resource table from firmware side after reboot isn't a good idea. I will try without it. > >> >> `cat /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/state` >> attached >> >> Somehow the sync between remote fw and linux isn't right. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>

3 weeks, 6 days

1
0
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/2/25 2:18 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 7/1/25 23:19, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> >> >> On 7/1/25 1:06 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/1/25 12:56 PM, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/1/25 12:18 PM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/1/25 17:16, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Tanmay, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >>>>>>>> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for boot >>>>>>>> recovery. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Few questions to better understand your use case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you >>>>>>> generate a crash of the remote processor, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it is an >>>>>>> autoreboot independent from the Linux core? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to the >>>>>>> Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver >>>>>> after >>>>>> reboot. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will implement >>>>>> coredump functionality as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some >>>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>>> crash handler ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >>>>>>>> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other >>>>>>>> platforms >>>>>>>> are testing this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of >>>>>>> autoreboot >>>>>>> of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to >>>>>>> recover. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind >>>>>>> - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using the NS >>>>>>> announcement mechanism >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then only >>>>>> initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify recovery >>>>>> progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might >>>>>> have to >>>>>> introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for >>>>>> recovery to complete successfully. >>>>> >>>>> I guess the rproc->clean_table contains a copy of the resource table that is >>>>> reapplied on attach, and the virtio devices should be re-probed, right? >>>>> >>>>> During the virtio device probe, the vdev status in the resource table is >>>>> updated >>>>> to 7 when virtio is ready to communicate. Virtio should then call >>>>> rproc_virtio_notify() to inform the remote processor of the status update. >>>>> At this stage, your remoteproc driver should be able to send a mailbox message >>>>> to inform the remote side about the recovery completion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think I spot the problem now. >>>> >>>> Linux side: file: remoteproc_core.c >>>> rproc_attach_recovery >>>> __rproc_detach >>>> cleans up the resource table and re-loads it >>>> __rproc_attach >>>> stops and re-starts subdevices >>>> >>>> >>>> Remote side: >>>> Remote re-boots after crash >>>> Detects crash happened previously >>>> notify crash to Linux >>>> (Linux is executing above flow meanwhile) >>>> starts creating virtio devices >>>> **rproc_virtio_create_vdev - parse vring & create vdev device** >>>> **rproc_virtio_wait_remote_ready - wait for remote ready** [1] >>>> >>>> I think Remote should wait on DRIVER_OK bit, before creating virtio devices. >>>> The temporary solution I implemented was to make sure vrings addresses are >>>> not 0xffffffff like following: >>>> >>>> while(rsc->rpmsg_vring0.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY || >>>> rsc->rpmsg_vring1.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY) { >>>> usleep(100); >>>> metal_cache_invalidate(rsc, rproc->rsc_len); >>>> } >>>> >>>> Above works, but I think better solution is to change sequence where remote >>>> waits before creating virtio devices. >>> >>> I am sorry, I should have said, remote should wait before parsing and >>> assigning vrings to virtio device. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/ >>>> blob/391671ba24840833d882c1a75c5d7307703b1cf1/lib/remoteproc/ remoteproc.c#L994 >>>> >> >> Actually upon further checking, I think above code is okay. I see that >> wait_remote_ready is called before vrings are setup on remote fw side. >> >> However, during recovery time on remote side, somehow I still have to implement >> platform specific wait for vrings to setup correctly. >> >> From linux side, DRIVER_OK bit is set before vrings are setup correctly. >> Because of that, when remote firmware sets up wrong vring addresses and then >> rpmsg channels are not created. >> >> I am investigating on this further. > > Do you reset the vdev status as requested by the virtio spec? > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.3/csd01/virtio-v1.3-csd01.html… > > Regards, > Arnaud > Yes I do. I am actually restoring deafult resource table on firmware side, which will set rpmsg_vdev status to 0. However, when printing vrings right before wait_remote_ready, I see vrings are not set correctly from linux side: `vring0 = 0xFFFFFFFF, vring1 = 0xFFFFFFFF` However, the rproc state was still moved to attach when checked from remoteproc sysfs. `cat /sys/class/remoteproc/remoteproc0/state` attached Somehow the sync between remote fw and linux isn't right. >> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tanmay >>>>> Regards >>>>> Arnaud >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Arnaud >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Tanmay >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>

3 weeks, 6 days

1
0
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/1/25 12:18 PM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 7/1/25 17:16, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> >> >> On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>> Hi Tanmay, >>> >>> On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >>>> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for boot >>>> recovery. >>> >>> Few questions to better understand your use case. >>> >>> 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you >>> generate a crash of the remote processor, right? >>> >> >> Yes correct. >> >>> 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it is an >>> autoreboot independent from the Linux core? >>> >> >> It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. >> >>> 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to the >>> Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? >>> >> >> Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver after >> reboot. >> >>> 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? >>> >> >> No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will implement >> coredump functionality as well. >> >>>> >>>> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >>>> >>>> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some kind of >>>> crash handler ? >>>> >>>> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it doesn't >>>> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >>>> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other platforms >>>> are testing this? >>> >>> I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of autoreboot >>> of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to recover. >> >> That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. >> >>> - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind >>> - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using the NS >>> announcement mechanism >>> >> >> Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then only >> initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify recovery >> progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might have to >> introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for >> recovery to complete successfully. > > I guess the rproc->clean_table contains a copy of the resource table that is > reapplied on attach, and the virtio devices should be re-probed, right? > > During the virtio device probe, the vdev status in the resource table is updated > to 7 when virtio is ready to communicate. Virtio should then call > rproc_virtio_notify() to inform the remote processor of the status update. > At this stage, your remoteproc driver should be able to send a mailbox message > to inform the remote side about the recovery completion. > I think I spot the problem now. Linux side: file: remoteproc_core.c rproc_attach_recovery __rproc_detach cleans up the resource table and re-loads it __rproc_attach stops and re-starts subdevices Remote side: Remote re-boots after crash Detects crash happened previously notify crash to Linux (Linux is executing above flow meanwhile) starts creating virtio devices **rproc_virtio_create_vdev - parse vring & create vdev device** **rproc_virtio_wait_remote_ready - wait for remote ready** [1] I think Remote should wait on DRIVER_OK bit, before creating virtio devices. The temporary solution I implemented was to make sure vrings addresses are not 0xffffffff like following: while(rsc->rpmsg_vring0.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY || rsc->rpmsg_vring1.da == FW_RSC_U32_ADDR_ANY) { usleep(100); metal_cache_invalidate(rsc, rproc->rsc_len); } Above works, but I think better solution is to change sequence where remote waits before creating virtio devices. [1] https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/blob/391671ba24840833d882c1a75c5d730770… Thanks, Tanmay > Regards > Arnaud > > >> >>> Regards, >>> Arnaud >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Tanmay >>

3 weeks, 6 days

1
2
0 0

Re: Testing on attach-detach recovery

by Tanmay Shah

On 7/1/25 3:07 AM, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > Hi Tanmay, > > On 6/27/25 23:29, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I am implementing remoteproc recovery on attach-detach use case. >> I have implemented the feature in the platform driver, and it works for boot >> recovery. > > Few questions to better understand your use case. > > 1) The linux remoteproc firmware attach to a a remote processor, and you > generate a crash of the remote processor, right? > Yes correct. > 1) How does the remoteprocessor reboot? On a remoteproc request or it is an > autoreboot independent from the Linux core? > It is auto-reboot independent from the linux core. > 2) In case of auto reboot, when does the remoteprocessor send an even to the > Linux remoteproc driver ? beforeor after the reset? > Right now, when Remote reboots, it sends crash event to remoteproc driver after reboot. > 3) Do you expect to get core dump on crash? > No coredump expected as of now, but only recovery. Eventually will implement coredump functionality as well. >> >> However, I am stuck at the testing phase. >> >> When should firmware report the crash ? After reboot ? or during some kind of >> crash handler ? >> >> So far, I am reporting crash after rebooting remote processor, but it doesn't >> seem to work i.e. I don't see rpmsg devices created after recovery.> >> What should be the correct process to test this feature ? How other platforms >> are testing this? > > I have never tested it on ST board. As a first analysis, in case of autoreboot > of the remote processor, it look like you should detach and reattach to recover. That is what's done from the remoteproc framework. > - On detach the rpmsg devices should be unbind > - On attach the remote processor should request RPmsg channels using the NS > announcement mechanism > Main issue is, Remote firmware needs to wait till all above happens. Then only initialize virtio devices. Currently we don't have any way to notify recovery progress from linux to remote fw in the remoteproc framework. So I might have to introduce some platform specific mechanism in remote firmware to wait for recovery to complete successfully. > Regards, > Arnaud > >> >> >> Thanks, >> Tanmay

4 weeks

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

Openamp-rp