Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] remoteproc: qcom: pas: add needs_tzmem flag to force shmbridge creation

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 03/07/2026 16:35, Ananthu C V wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:44:41PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 03/07/2026 14:31, Ananthu C V wrote:
>>> Most Qualcomm platforms feature Gunyah hypervisor, which typically
>>> handles Stage 2 IOMMU configuration. Additionally, SHM bridge setup
>>> is required to enable memory protection for both remoteproc metadata
>>> and its memory regions. When the aforementioned hypervisor is absent,
>>> the operating system must perform these configurations instead. We've
>>> been relying on the iommu property being present for this, but for
>>> remoteprocs that are already running like SoCCP the mappings are already
>>> in place, and any attempt to recreate them while active would lead to smmu
>>> faults and a non-functional remoteproc. Fix this by adding a needs_tzmem
>>> flag which ensures tzmem and SHM bridge setup is performed independent to
>>> the iommu property being present.
>>
>> Looks awfully like LLM written and considering obvious problem, this
>> feels vibe coded.
>>
>> According to current docs YOU SHOULD add vibe-coding tag to the commit
>> when doing that.
> 
> Part of the commit message is based on 5c720260e840, and the rest is all written
> and readjusted manually. Every single line of change in the code also is fully
> handwritten - well, typed - by me. I don't know where the feeling came from, but
> please be relieved to know that there has been no involvement of AI here.
> 
>>>  static const struct of_device_id qcom_pas_of_match[] = {
>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,eliza-adsp-pas", .data = &sm8550_adsp_resource },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,glymur-soccp-pas", .data = &glymur_soccp_resource },
>>
>> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl on the patches and fix reported
>> warnings. After that, run also 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' on the
>> patches and (probably) fix more warnings. Some warnings can be ignored,
>> especially from --strict run, but the code here looks like it needs a
>> fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
> 
> I ran checkpatch well over twenty times before posting the series, and I did
> it a few more times after seeing your reply. I did not run into any problems,
> and as such I cannot understand the problem here.
> 
> I could not paste this into an external pastebin from my work pc due to policy
> reasons, so please forgive me for sharing this extended paste here:


There is no qcom,glymur-soccp-pas documented here. It was in separate
patchset which is already bringing confusion - the documentation goes
with the user. If you keep things separate, expect such comments and no
reviews.

Best regards,
Krzysztof