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 1FFFE2236E3; Mon, 8 Dec 2025 07:50:14 +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=1765180217; cv=none; b=tT3sckCGPdNeZ2JKT20rpTjIPiPHJi9/IclMv3gHcnocjMjNM7Z4rMc5SW3FA2r3iTAAT6vr6tCYs3sE2A4AIXzV2T7T8Ttt2P60ESQsSc3Upx24Lse2EeyPKOl5PoU76kgRv45nBOtG/qNamuXlD42LeuTN+wWsYepM6ztTQhY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765180217; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BQv2Xr8gIzWQjGUZrekOrgrVYe0RmkhiI+Ckd+zPkmg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=d/waAl8eugbynqU69A0BzJBzRs2wgdRgKK5wUo3IZRT2YyiLppCqPwW0o8Dz82RxTf5Ui9eOfDUwpVto3uvYK+TotAgS+g/UjfyiaVjsAa1rzkQAicID8yOgJYYpflyFqsVz0iYp8ScAp6jwhPu89E7XDOwgd47EjezPi1rIOsk= 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=ebgvuoK2; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=m+znTcNh; 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="ebgvuoK2"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="m+znTcNh" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1765180183; bh=Kh8iktu6wz0TfYe4Rd3bOsb T7eoJQRZUzKTXHukPRY0=; b=ebgvuoK24oFyl7FhlCW07VdOGWku+CBV/1VrRvoXyc9uxtlbog T1FKYivLGoItNGO5ilJXETPZSVosEjkUGPSMlCA7YZFrqExsUcrNB720C5pL8bDMSYGfMHzFFQB x0Ij09Bxfepp771+trmrPh3hncxCPyo3z1DHEezv8A5ZhPCL/OyLYTRZainjeR7GhxoIN4SrQqO qVrb2i1qOiFVCjKFccPyo3RvSVaNcru6TlZY1q74AyJ8Cc8D+0TzBtR9SdvwLLceAff1+RcPYFt Vu44T40RZeUYZzR2ep1mIQ2PW1sYCePIEvKMN8S9BPX7NdjILmBWKxN+DBPkYFlSAwg==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=To:From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; t=1765180183; bh=Kh8iktu6wz0TfYe4Rd3bOsb T7eoJQRZUzKTXHukPRY0=; b=m+znTcNhcuwIio6Bn4KS+oyupYIq1I9YFNBBAs3hVfT1IXt1+w 2is/AdjL55e112rVyAyZswjG6DRzOG7dYGAg==; Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 10:49:40 +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> <8080bcb5-280d-459c-8877-5086129c87a6@mainlining.org> Content-Language: ru-RU, en-US In-Reply-To: <8080bcb5-280d-459c-8877-5086129c87a6@mainlining.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + 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? 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 >> >>>>>>> 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