Message-ID: <20250822092109.awrfyqz2tfaxchjy@hu-mojha-hyd.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:51:09 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>
To: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
        Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] remoteproc: Move resource table data structure
 to its own header

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 06:53:36PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:02:50PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 08:48:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:12:15AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:24:41PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > > > The resource table data structure has traditionally been associated with
> > > > > the remoteproc framework, where the resource table is included as a
> > > > > section within the remote processor firmware binary. However, it is also
> > > > > possible to obtain the resource table through other means—such as from a
> > > > > reserved memory region populated by the boot firmware, statically
> > > > > maintained driver data, or via a secure SMC call—when it is not embedded
> > > > > in the firmware.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are multiple Qualcomm remote processors (e.g., Venus, Iris, GPU,
> > > > > etc.) in the upstream kernel that do not use the remoteproc framework to
> > > > > manage their lifecycle for various reasons.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When Linux is running at EL2, similar to the Qualcomm PAS driver
> > > > > (qcom_q6v5_pas.c), client drivers for subsystems like video and GPU may
> > > > > also want to use the resource table SMC call to retrieve and map
> > > > > resources before they are used by the remote processor.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > All the examples you give here (Venus/Iris, GPU) have some sort of EL2
> > > > support already for older platforms:
> > > 
> > > Example was taken from perspective of remote processor life-cycle management.
> > > You are right they have worked before in non-secure way for Chrome.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  - For GPU, we just skip loading the ZAP shader and access the protected
> > > >    registers directly. I would expect the ZAP shader does effectively
> > > >    the same, perhaps with some additional handling for secure mode. Is
> > > >    this even a real remote processor that has a separate IOMMU domain?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't think it is the case and think the same that they can skip
> > > loading and Hence, I have not yet added support for it.
> > > 
> > > Will check internally before doing anything on GPU.
> > > 
> > > >  - For Venus/Iris, there is code upstream similar to your PATCH 11/11
> > > >    that maps the firmware with the IOMMU (but invokes reset directly
> > > >    using the registers, without using PAS). There is no resource table
> > > >    used for that either, so at least all Venus/Iris versions so far
> > > >    apparently had no need for any mappings aside from the firmware
> > > >    binary.
> > > 
> > > You are absolutely right
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I understand that you want to continue using PAS for these, but I'm a
> > > > bit confused what kind of mappings we would expect to have in the
> > > > resource table for video and GPU. Could you give an example?
> > > 
> > > We have some debug hw tracing available for video for lemans, which is
> > > optional However, I believe infra is good to have incase we need some
> > > required resources to be map for Video to work for a SoC.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stephan
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > -Mukesh Ojha
> > 
> > Since I am not subscribed to any of the mailing lists to which this
> > series was sent, I am not receiving emails from the list. As a result,
> > your recent messages did not reach my inbox. Additionally, it seems your
> > reply inadvertently removed me from the To-list.
> > 
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aKXqSU-487b6Je2B@linaro.org/
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aKXQAoXZyR6SRPAA@linaro.org/
> > 
> 
> Indeed, but I don't think this is my fault: You have a strange
> "Mail-Followup-To:" list in the email header of your reply [1] and my
> email client honors it when I press "group reply". Your email client or
> server seems to produce this header without including you in the follow
> up list, as if you don't want to receive any replies. :-)
> 
> I fixed it up manually this time, but perhaps you should look into the
> source of this weird header in your replies, I'm probably not the only
> person using mutt and just hitting "group reply" all the time ...

Thanks for pointing out.
I am trying to fix this, let me see with this reply.

> 
> Stephan
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250820163250.hszey3i2gtd3o2i6@hu-mojha-hyd.qualcomm.com/raw

-- 
-Mukesh Ojha

Powered by blists - more mailing lists