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 DFB0613B7A3; Sun, 23 Nov 2025 10:52:10 +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=1763895133; cv=none; b=BCLmb15fOMYxd3JMf6yfDnAQGZvvTDHj75sskkIH4n1ZEscZHPCodFT48KT3FAwUJAzeD8Xa518+YIrYhnq8Ak6MVxjc4PLmQzHFrRqbhnG/gLmYtaPZ0TttRZM2aGjdu2oIg1E/ZS3MJOOrzJVqLzmPGFAnP0SVBSTlWWCOqyE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763895133; c=relaxed/simple; bh=no70eWGGIftQYFOp9hmMcZz2jvTCbMsLujdI+KwbwU4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=URe3i0TncKtphfDmc9TCCIrKxzeJCKeRZ1/mgX+q9JfimLHJJh7bwhY6sEAQvSKpccCMSuXbKc0T3lsPigThu05VemICgTY/Y0WWXM53I2qWb/XmXVF9sxQ7OyyUgOeTrgGdukWTCnLCn8s/sRG/jwP8902E5LpfXh6S6mXh2Ds= 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=p4rpiksi; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=0zoYY16w; 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="p4rpiksi"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="0zoYY16w" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763895110; bh=2/2LcYEhr5gfpXqm959iLku gDfIjyMkf7XuhZNUD+po=; b=p4rpiksiZN5MRTRKSBuvTDzvZY1zPFFZ41c819UsuDsXmptaz5 T+lju9Yhnw78Mm4PQVEYz9oClFRgb5ngtAHYacXzrUTj4G2KVB8S0Q+u5UIauCv/U2vc0Fgt2lY LUw+3Cv3RYiOqgXLkSzqDOK1VjFLu0gDXcJZfgMkQ7zzUkB3yWJG+baDBW3QbTeP7g3RkA8yvGr QuzPTaSMNEjaDsNMbuVxAkzPCYpqUWNpd6n50OIaLp4tcJPk4JffpcagokIC8X858WmVgdYgVBM jLag7MNLHAn+DlN3XMTcOS5RWNH67a6mVFELcXLt7HYl+s/c/udnBPhb3gC/Bf4Rpog==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1763895110; bh=2/2LcYEhr5gfpXqm959iLku gDfIjyMkf7XuhZNUD+po=; b=0zoYY16wkdxXGUE14wmdP/PxwE+pEUW6dL2HaW/emeD/k7oQ6I A3dXXmJnCO7drOXmyie8oxbYh/ppNRP0D0Aw==; Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2025 13:51:49 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: 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 From: Nickolay Goppen In-Reply-To: <2h222ejvc37cldeno7e4qom5tnvdblqn2zypuquvadbcu7d3pr@765qomrwfvwl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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? >>>> 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