From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA652C64991 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 08:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234310AbiIAI4a (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 04:56:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35414 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234292AbiIAI4O (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 04:56:14 -0400 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C936D12CB19; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 01:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0279864.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 2817OAJd006975; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 08:56:07 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=qcppdkim1; bh=fQA25NwyX3gMlI+Zmailgv/tBeOJU/nLjAI1PDjDWcs=; b=cIQrOBgEJbf4qlfmFq0rClIgiFJLRhted5Df/YOjp7rRRjWcH20KbPJp8/Rdv/H/GgQJ Z35Iaoy7AxnG4pkz2e1psGN7UO7jinBnxolnFZExHVDjeDJKCSOS4z2pZW/ecqtGwU48 QWTm15Y71iPgmH+WkBnmq3wSbNipEfybcEyKM1TQLMXZzeRdsHvzid6ovCHoW8VlNove 6vEiqjTT12lr0Woh3fUL8Ey+i8rNnXuUgYhdga2jWOGeZAPIiQ4/3R7Wju4mrz+gQ4rj 9U+QUON5InzbRQRAFEEWLKxmHCXrIu16azyhyGupYLoIrqQoMPjupP6/ydR6kZz8qmAK rg== Received: from nasanppmta04.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jaaasb1tb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 01 Sep 2022 08:56:07 +0000 Received: from nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com [10.45.79.139]) by NASANPPMTA04.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 2818u7bj011761 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 1 Sep 2022 08:56:07 GMT Received: from [10.216.21.166] (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.29; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 01:56:04 -0700 Message-ID: <33688ee4-df73-a107-b775-02c4b4bc4229@quicinc.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:25:54 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: report firmware name on load failures Content-Language: en-US To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , , , References: <20220831161736.749932-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> From: Mukesh Ojha In-Reply-To: <20220831161736.749932-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) To nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 5pe_VhOTQSEdev5asV9R6AVGlspLfv2D X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 5pe_VhOTQSEdev5asV9R6AVGlspLfv2D X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-09-01_06,2022-08-31_03,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2207270000 definitions=main-2209010039 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org hi, On 8/31/2022 9:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > remoteproc error messages like: > remoteproc remoteproc0: request_firmware failed: -2 > remoteproc remoteproc1: request_firmware failed: -2 > are difficult to debug as one actually have no clue which device > reported it and which firmware is missing. Be verbose and print the > name of the failed firmware. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index e5279ed9a8d7..71cd7ed7a970 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1923,7 +1923,8 @@ int rproc_trigger_recovery(struct rproc *rproc) > /* load firmware */ > ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev); > if (ret < 0) { > - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret); > + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware %s failed: %d\n", > + rproc->firmware, ret); > goto unlock_mutex; > } > > @@ -2023,7 +2024,8 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) > /* load firmware */ > ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev); > if (ret < 0) { > - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret); > + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware %s failed: %d\n", > + rproc->firmware, ret); Good to have this. Acked-by: Mukesh Ojha > goto downref_rproc; > } > -Mukesh