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 814A22BE7BB; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 17:10:13 +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=1764695417; cv=none; b=JvUPUcBFI3f6HgW39Oqg6OtRnlV5g2n47ryp880fPZY4SG/JrdOdNR/JuW0/GjPBzMgD93CuM7olYZIcDK5AkhqUB4DrCeYu0g5ar4wn+TxEjAa6y1iFjpqG89jMtZKwp3DwORfRCo+nhR4tSYym6jG4x5KwYFsMd7FmeutUYvs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764695417; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hqqep8wG1oOHJU3K2JWY/uMp6TzXfMwMTS7in6I2SrM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=i/fgfpzI843gGR/llCzzBRhLlhEWIytVW6zy/zJTym8CHvRAr7XJ6ZDlTtcNQTi3qXCs6WOCqOSTjPWQIKxMTSBzGzGvGoG55dXkVY+HHH3b/oZHt/aol8qPDEmbB+KAuTh87IkDafWIDEoq5MmEAy0hddEijRt8t4I26jMY1a4= 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=oSW+Y8kL; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=WWACamON; 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="oSW+Y8kL"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="WWACamON" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764695394; bh=N1Oc4szkEzS9P4vo48xoAht Jix7VY42TEfOmk+VEpbw=; b=oSW+Y8kLvKOBjnb43HGv302WiZ382Rj2uxUBCx4TDbYyjedqE2 42n5IdMebZ9lVdxM/SMp8EinPZ0j8Jv1wAlTvMdLGhW/B9hZtzEbrwAoTr6hTx8nBs5f10D3hHU 7KAytapsvHBG1G/XdjR2SaJgqZOpDzQHyDUi5+9Sne2oSZX0RzJB5190Kg0fkW7OigOAq9i0Y/T lCAvKdlNPu2OmUKZXOnuDKq5+fpAzc/hNHPxwazIL1jMJBT+bC04ZMQAtLcwwOMm7MVeucUGFCT FwC4kpluNaSSQKkI4oYSNzi2BRny8XJZq1HGZNyKyJ4BMp7UbbuSR970pxb8cqSu99A==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1764695394; bh=N1Oc4szkEzS9P4vo48xoAht Jix7VY42TEfOmk+VEpbw=; b=WWACamON1F1bczxVPILuFOeTAmA1x9K8HuGJZISFzxGhfVRpID WecX+IKWrzswNcJ3A9blSmyUxIkAXnRC6hAg==; Message-ID: <8080bcb5-280d-459c-8877-5086129c87a6@mainlining.org> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 20:09:53 +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 From: Nickolay Goppen 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + 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 > [   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? > >>>>>> 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