Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630/660: Add CDSP-related nodes

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 12/8/25 8:49 AM, Nickolay Goppen wrote:
> 
> 02.12.2025 20:09, Nickolay Goppen пишет:
>>
>> 24.11.2025 18:02, Nickolay Goppen пишет:
>>>
>>> 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 <setotau@mainlining.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + 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

This iova looks a little suspicious..

>>> [   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
>>>
>> How to debug such issues?
> 
> This issue occurs also when I'm trying to run a hexagonrpcd with the following command (with copied from the dspso partition libs):
> 
> sudo -u fastrpc hexagonrpcd -f /dev/fastrpc-cdsp -R /usr/share/qcom/sdm660/Xiaomi/clover/ -d cdsp -c /usr/share/qcom/sdm660/Xiaomi/clover/dsp/cdsp/fastrpc_shell_3

Please open an issue on:

https://github.com/qualcomm/fastrpc/issues

Konrad