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 1137D137C52; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 14:00:57 +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=1764165661; cv=none; b=YknCMyOIrYOcQmSMc1mHrx7nIDqz43Q+C7FjTyVtTIroyo+NPSk1p7w7qiyvro52k1i/O4FuoH4LMnXQc8BYJSxpkCOxF2DWhuqUHC5Zw4OgDMKZrClvlTrFXhZEeZwFtqUOsmbd0smRqBLEho5Rm8NHhh2S0s2swajQ99TYB3A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764165661; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YPaj0iMsevOTP8GI9PWH05D8ZA2CgzzSRRCxKtKkl9U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=EdXdGPITxOoVpyPAgy9HT4v1EB3v8XxEhJYgAOvCr2IgA+OA7i8k2UAAuNnT2VWoKPbE+TGVwlgrO5j1Sg50MZZntw+wvAuTZnwzzFe4HRdB3fOkTkK8x7YGvZ+AHp9myB5iSEj+yKVAsVtDdmmtrxO1xdHPAEEB4QoO+X/1Ab8= 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=Cwy2j730; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=HXrAdQuG; 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="Cwy2j730"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="HXrAdQuG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764165630; bh=98Z8IhtiwxpFOEoUf8F7jdZ okl9OCBSivqNWZSRrKaE=; b=Cwy2j730GvIcTHJ/zJj9FqPhfI64iUIwfVPXqvfRPOcoKxPI+r PIeum0H1cyJFQsG6JYbz9Segmk+wgrT5i6PeEHwxxAZlz7KkQnt1k/XUj4E+83EiKk8MlyLKY72 z4BbW3zpJFlURvKyiLGiMgFEX6SjXTFTYhShlTkzqVVV6bodgXihz4fCGSMPhI+inC7ubQSfC0u HdumstTecvpJ9qsqgYM9wh22+uzfTNeogRuQ0eSlMt5Q9MZE9wdWAi0jGX4K+mKr9G0buWlAwTz LtQjkfDTJ/okrCcxk3zx0FnnOEh6KK8Sf+utF7EKw5d8Udww1zRPaW4c4iOYplB8Ehg==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764165630; bh=98Z8IhtiwxpFOEoUf8F7jdZ okl9OCBSivqNWZSRrKaE=; b=HXrAdQuG3aHEFFE3hidI4q5Yp1/L3bWZPP1zXgsBnbp5iDMZXG H4KncF09O/O37RUqGUcmAJtV63XuOeqSVlDQ==; Message-ID: <515191cf-a8b8-4487-989b-4c1736a67b2c@mainlining.org> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:00:29 +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. > When I've removed the qcom,non-secure-domain property from cdsp and tried to run hexagonrpcd via this command: 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 It raised the following error: qcom,fastrpc 1a300000.remoteproc:glink-edge.fastrpcglink-apps-dsp.-1.-1: Error: Untrusted application trying to offload to signed PD >>>> 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