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 E691319F135; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 07:57:52 +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=1763625475; cv=none; b=jlIDdbPUrfg/O7jUd4F0/u9GLV61ZlN+rwu2qVZsZn/rFF8JgMrVQ9C1icSe5gw5z30tZwM1lfjO9OW6X1ULjyreXqscdGmuEkJGagXY1IA2+cFFQUcd6B0Fy/LUF5+5wocyBvQdhW9VIYf1HuCB+z6vftnAMJY6w3ouzHyDDyU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763625475; c=relaxed/simple; bh=V0Sh2TMXpUQCNxyR3egUazThvyB7Eda+oTn2EUA+1sE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=V30UOVCWSv0ewCrJsKbw63HKKGodSCJUmvkV2IkPk1xRDWHN9vlqI9yOVKSOkEe4n3lI4zJrM4w9FicU/qzPr7BYGvu61bf/TN+v1UHo+fYNGc3ODYARiU/SAGfSgWWLWdhgic2O/T1YLFY6hyAK+EypLqwP9hZiEgXN3Xppajo= 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=fuk2iyo0; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=M9T/whRL; 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="fuk2iyo0"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="M9T/whRL" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763625465; bh=ZV6NAnJ/9l3+2iQNuWRUgEr Humtpng+pcSbwFNFU05U=; b=fuk2iyo0VfGxbqu4F95yIVAtBQuN2jqGI6e5FrboZGbLr3m5KM GZUEGMsq8vqYJ5n2FXpnivp4F9ODPheKSHu/ccRtOADOX5LIt2g60N0rbrYqmk9bqr06wu96uAK 0LKN5j+owjF+w1eGZl71SEeyoDSYyeGdsgCxLn3aHfPJJPpjXnJ4ZJTPznlXrWBTrmQhdvkig1h +272z+k7QX7h1zMU/1C1q5TVGtiK6TobX2pOTbYgo7l+V5/hc19VOnN9zebeVQ2JoJ25l41pRLU aY2kGIQDgzrMUyZfw6/Pc20kpf3+zDFMkJRfu7orziFmzlbgsIVolhUR/1AbXIWuzKw==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763625465; bh=ZV6NAnJ/9l3+2iQNuWRUgEr Humtpng+pcSbwFNFU05U=; b=M9T/whRLLezxSf1wEbNotivF4PkiRNc4YsnZQVvq0NewtfZC2F 6X6QYg8PQ9uyRTwncqndxw+oVVJdG+3LnDAA==; Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:57:43 +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 , Srinivas Kandagatla , Konrad Dybcio , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley Cc: 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: <20251023-qcom-sdm660-cdsp-adsp-dts-v2-0-895ffe50ab5f@mainlining.org> <20251023-qcom-sdm660-cdsp-adsp-dts-v2-1-895ffe50ab5f@mainlining.org> <07066c46-4121-48da-846a-3a180d245589@oss.qualcomm.com> <47b40a91-8365-4431-9fd9-1e48fad2a4e1@mainlining.org> <83c3aea5-764e-4e60-8b16-67b474f19357@oss.qualcomm.com> <80836b8f-16a8-4520-ad11-5ca0abb3403e@oss.qualcomm.com> <99c22e73-797c-4a30-92ba-bc3bd8cf70f0@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: ru-RU, en-US From: Nickolay Goppen In-Reply-To: <99c22e73-797c-4a30-92ba-bc3bd8cf70f0@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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? >> >>> Konrad -- Best regards, Nickolay