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 1A180258CE9; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 15:02:37 +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=1763996561; cv=none; b=c71wNzMhGVt4y/4B7lsUZCPB7l1F23DueplwgZ7GLa1Gtarax9EuID94IrThu1IrcZWENtuGQAmzcFh8spH4d3ClPborkIk4Pv7S6fohumQrNKYXlG4+mXy+rfWaeuHinAyg+eVsMa0iet4oqb+4tV1buzquzfWQrE6L+INPvaM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763996561; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MUSwhtgm3BCGsY/Yl3RMNuN5ZtNDXiP3mjH6apWIBWM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=FfYUjqNVKKsIASvrNXPf0kjOIbzUAralGxvpIBc3fkynQQm2AkLyUdFh1hMu7VPC0yY2poEyG48XwWdGQXDhlaDER+/G5ppAxw1SFMaBbN2Bs4yWeBnTcgzPnlBTf0fDFAHSLUBe3PhdaEqfHhHhKNlK4a/nt6u07X/3QkusXKY= 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=Yes+e4yF; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=rmldshq9; 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="Yes+e4yF"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="rmldshq9" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763996550; bh=BEapyRxXsmfjY6bhePE1aSR Gz1P0rziFs5A6ZoN1Afg=; b=Yes+e4yFOvIMy8Iz8H8ZTszQ/5u1gYi4N5VKqISehvrpVLWxD5 sGvfSEinL3igowtVgsxe+Uc9/oa+p+PyotLtWmYEVy/tUmoWoXHQy17g5v/POD1sZg1G9bGOiWZ jyorZZRzI0HX2epAjt4qG21H4jHT6qpyScLcXdTiRYLgC7ORzvuqR2Lnfx2/0+P3gQzVqDHU1gG dOL4Nii4TNiKh5JPUV9gNS5AzBC4mbN5o/PW8f+zq8j4/Y8tfjNaBZkv6fVyI7f7AmfAV0/yObs QWzpGryQbCe5aoPVwZpNgId2MrAkLGMWaqBFkBmgNTztkO1dhFBAt0KLq8OvsExMd+A==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763996550; bh=BEapyRxXsmfjY6bhePE1aSR Gz1P0rziFs5A6ZoN1Afg=; b=rmldshq9bDSDnGF49ZzwV0C+EZRzRFERlhUvJjfZFj2Z2Ymra1 pmyionvh9Y7d5eWiBBkB/w+lPr1rg6APYEDA==; Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:02:29 +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 From: Nickolay Goppen To: Dmitry Baryshkov , Ekansh Gupta 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> Content-Language: ru-RU, en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 >>>>> 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