From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.mainlining.org (mail.mainlining.org [5.75.144.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F55298CA5; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764002063; cv=none; b=bY0J7p4m/u6Req84KUQJX6Oung5e81TLxmdhImWW4PdlBIHRYZZbkpgiUFbWMy8fcDB/VQMqmD4+cLnr+sJhRmGgYzcTUc4CbBmoG87Z2jBDOaVp8kX8tPDafraksuqbIeNN0RAjfcENMC682Ry1RIMZP1cJb4EUzun1FzGhWuw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764002063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bLNUntFA190P6T8OWsNO75VHvXpIqvxazFS9OQAK+00=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bmCM4vk9zrsQVQ8rAOJEJ9VuWiv99IB1Rt6ukxOBqcKRwxJKm8FXZe5r0hYo4tQ03a5/G68szEyllvx/xlFssVdt09Xj1tcbiog0kGR5QvXeryv7NAaUy8gMQsMpBbSKjuJw+WdUVjVNBpgFAPByns91RQQMUYQQ1z7bRLIf1EU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=nQfbJhwS; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=vJdZ6dKD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="nQfbJhwS"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="vJdZ6dKD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764002016; bh=t3iiIyLjsNz/9iVAMYIb9dy URt3jS7A9CBG5Ng6Av9Y=; b=nQfbJhwSl9Ch9At1qj8ZxBVu1yTESs/6Ita7lz87gRh0oEdmRF pYDMoaiNwIXyw+2Dn35oHHOX0smmzvlvpKYPLVZNJCH/m4AdW4/Bjvxj3fJxx0kBP34pxtO2/r8 weMUdZLbnOb8CZubo/HkV5PZjbGsCIjqcKJlJ41OaSlDG2nHpvfsDW0c9eo14PY9m3u0kRAihC4 TNbZtQInqWjVoljQ9JiXGiGbQM2q9VCwvD6cJDvdzGNwUpg1yiuuLGRme3RhDqRVpx4M+fBbp8D LJQpNlJF4Cbn0DBoJDbiyBkW/Sybov++p3ymWZaGCeLDTj1a5nWDeN/HXjGRz+nPfFg==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764002016; bh=t3iiIyLjsNz/9iVAMYIb9dy URt3jS7A9CBG5Ng6Av9Y=; b=vJdZ6dKDcB2EuUtgFlmkCD8dUw8eicd0/J/MOuiMxHBeAFGUIR T4uzKO/2MejgCHoQHq9Rlz0EqOhTQ7fshGBQ==; Message-ID: <87d40d9d-0b04-4bfe-b035-260e094d1886@mainlining.org> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:33:35 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630/660: Add CDSP-related nodes To: Ekansh Gupta , Dmitry Baryshkov Cc: Konrad Dybcio , Srinivas Kandagatla , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, linux@mainlining.org, Chenna Kesava Raju , Bharath Kumar References: <83c3aea5-764e-4e60-8b16-67b474f19357@oss.qualcomm.com> <80836b8f-16a8-4520-ad11-5ca0abb3403e@oss.qualcomm.com> <99c22e73-797c-4a30-92ba-bc3bd8cf70f0@oss.qualcomm.com> <0b06f744-b695-43d9-8da3-4424e2b53a5e@oss.qualcomm.com> <24221ce7-24e4-4eaa-8681-ed9b4b9f2d6e@oss.qualcomm.com> <2h222ejvc37cldeno7e4qom5tnvdblqn2zypuquvadbcu7d3pr@765qomrwfvwl> <51e5945d-e800-4f97-8e2e-f97f61b76fc8@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: ru-RU, en-US From: Nickolay Goppen In-Reply-To: <51e5945d-e800-4f97-8e2e-f97f61b76fc8@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 24.11.2025 18:29, Ekansh Gupta пишет: > > On 11/24/2025 8:32 PM, Nickolay Goppen wrote: >> 23.11.2025 13:51, Nickolay Goppen пишет: >>> 21.11.2025 15:09, Dmitry Baryshkov пишет: >>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 01:41:21PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>>>> On 11/20/2025 5:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>> On 11/20/25 11:54 AM, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 1:27 PM, Nickolay Goppen wrote: >>>>>>>> 20.11.2025 07:55, Ekansh Gupta пишет: >>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 1:58 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/25 1:52 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/25 6:41 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/25 12:52 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/25 12:30 PM, Nickolay Goppen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24.10.2025 16:58, Nickolay Goppen пишет: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24.10.2025 11:28, Konrad Dybcio пишет: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/25 9:51 PM, Nickolay Goppen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to enable CDSP support for SDM660 SoC: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * add shared memory p2p nodes for CDSP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * add CDSP-specific smmu node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * add CDSP peripheral image loader node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Memory region for CDSP in SDM660 occupies the same spot as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TZ buffer mem defined in sdm630.dtsi (which does not have CDSP). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sdm660.dtsi replace buffer_mem inherited from SDM630 with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cdsp_region, which is also larger in size. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SDM636 also doesn't have CDSP, so remove inherited from sdm660.dtsi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related nodes and add buffer_mem back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nickolay Goppen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + label = "turing"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdsp" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll change this in the next revision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mboxes = <&apcs_glb 29>; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +            qcom,remote-pid = <5>; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +            fastrpc { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                compatible = "qcom,fastrpc"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                qcom,glink-channels = "fastrpcglink-apps-dsp"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                label = "cdsp"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + qcom,non-secure-domain; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't matter, both a secure and a non-secure device is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created for CDSP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've added this property, because it is used in other SoC's, such as SDM845 and SM6115 for both ADSP and CDSP >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this property not neccessary anymore? >>>>>>>>>>>>> +Srini? >>>>>>>>>>>> That is true, we do not require this for CDSP, as CDSP allows both >>>>>>>>>>>> unsigned and signed loading, we create both secured and non-secure node >>>>>>>>>>>> by default. May be we can provide that clarity in yaml bindings so that >>>>>>>>>>>> it gets caught during dtb checks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> However in ADSP case, we only support singed modules, due to historical >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons how this driver evolved over years, we have this flag to allow >>>>>>>>>>>> compatiblity for such users. >>>>>>>>>>> Does that mean that we can only load signed modules on the ADSP, but >>>>>>>>>>> the driver behavior was previously such that unsigned modules were >>>>>>>>>>> allowed (which was presumably fine on devboards, but not on fused >>>>>>>>>>> devices)? >>>>>>>>>> Yes, its true that we allowed full access to adsp device nodes when we >>>>>>>>>> first started upstreaming fastrpc driver. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the board only signed modules are supported on the ADSP. >>>>>>>>>> I think there was one version of SoC i think 8016 or some older one >>>>>>>>>> which had adsp with hvx which can load unsigned modules for compute >>>>>>>>>> usecase only. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have added @Ekansh for more clarity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --srini >>>>>>>>> For all the available platforms, ADSP supports only signed modules. Unsigned >>>>>>>>> modules(as well as signed) are supported by CDSP and GDSP subsystems. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> qcom,non-secure-domain property marks the corresponding DSP as non-secure DSP. >>>>>>>>> The implications of adding this property would be the following: >>>>>>>>> on ADSP, SDSP, MDSP: >>>>>>>>> - Only non-secure device node(/dev/fastrpc-Xdsp) is created. >>>>>>>>> - Non-secure device node can be used for signed DSP PD offload. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on CDSP, GDSP: >>>>>>>>> - Both secure(/dev/fastrpc-Xdsp-secure) and non-secure(/dev/fastrpc-Xdsp) devices >>>>>>>>>     are created, regardless of this property. >>>>>>>>> - Both the nodes can be used for signed and unsigned DSP PD offload. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note: If the property is not added for CDSP/GDSP, only secure device node can >>>>>>>>> be used for signed PD offload, if non-secure device is used, the request gets >>>>>>>>> rejected[1]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/misc/fastrpc.c#n1245 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> //Ekansh >>>>>>>> Does this mean that the qcom,non-secure-domain property should be dropped from both nodes? >>>>>>> I checked again and found that unsigned module support for CDSP is >>>>>>> not available on this platform. Given this, the safest approach would >>>>>>> be to add the property for both ADSP and CDSP, ensuring that all >>>>>>> created device nodes can be used for signed PD offload. I can provide >>>>>> The property allows *unsigned* PD offload though >>>>> I don't think I can directly relate this property to unsigned PD offload. This is just >>>>> defining what type of device node will be created and whether the channel is secure >>>>> or not. There is a possibility of making unsigned PD request(on CDSP/GDSP) irrespective >>>>> of whether this property is added or not. If DSP does not support unsigned offload, it >>>>> should return failures for such requests. >>>> Which part of the hardware and/or firmware interface does it define? If >>>> it simply declared Linux behaviour, it is incorrect and probably should >>>> be dropped. >>> I still don't understand, do I need this property or not? >> I've began testing the FastRPC on CDSP and the command >> >> sudo fastrpc_test -d 3 -U 1 -t linux -a v68 >> has caused the following errors: >> >> [   60.810545] arm-smmu 5180000.iommu: Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x402, iova=0xfffff000, fsynr=0x1, cbfrsynra=0x6, cb=3 >> [   60.810588] arm-smmu 5180000.iommu: FSR    = 00000402 [Format=2 TF], SID=0x6 >> [   60.810603] arm-smmu 5180000.iommu: FSYNR0 = 00000001 [S1CBNDX=0 PLVL=1] >> [   60.815657] qcom_q6v5_pas 1a300000.remoteproc: fatal error received: :0:EX:kernel:0:frpck_0_0:77:PC=c0117de0 >> [   60.815684] remoteproc remoteproc2: crash detected in cdsp: type fatal error >> [   60.815738] remoteproc remoteproc2: handling crash #1 in cdsp >> [   60.815754] remoteproc remoteproc2: recovering cdsp >> [   60.819267] (NULL device *): Error: dsp information is incorrect err: -32 > Are you trying out only calculator or all the libs? If yes, can you please > help with creating an issue in the above mentioned github project? > > On older platforms, I would suggest to only try with calculator as other > libs are not stable. > > We are getting a better version of other test libs signed and will update > the project with new libs post signing. > > //Ekansh I've tested the calculator only and it also fails. I think that the CDSP has Hexagon version v60, that is lower than minimal v68 in the repo. I can help with creating an issue, what should I do? >> >>>>>>> a more definitive recommendation once I know the specific use cases >>>>>>> you plan to run. >>>>>> Why would the usecase affect this? >>>>> I'm saying this as per past discussions where some application was relying on non-secure >>>>> device node on some old platform(on postmarketOS)[1] and having this property in place. >>>>> So if similar usecase is being enabled here, the property might be required[1]. >>>> DT files are not usecase-based. >>>> >>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/8/15/117 -- Best regards, Nickolay