Message-ID: <87d40d9d-0b04-4bfe-b035-260e094d1886@mainlining.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:33:35 +0300
From: Nickolay Goppen <setotau@...nlining.org>
To: Ekansh Gupta <ekansh.gupta@....qualcomm.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, linux@...nlining.org,
 Chenna Kesava Raju <chennak@....qualcomm.com>,
 Bharath Kumar <bkumar@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630/660: Add CDSP-related
 nodes


24.11.2025 18:29, Ekansh Gupta пишет:
>
> On 11/24/2025 8:32 PM, Nickolay Goppen wrote:
>> 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 <setotau@...nlining.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + 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
> Are you trying out only calculator or all the libs? If yes, can you please
> help with creating an issue in the above mentioned github project?
>
> On older platforms, I would suggest to only try with calculator as other
> libs are not stable.
>
> We are getting a better version of other test libs signed and will update
> the project with new libs post signing.
>
> //Ekansh
I've tested the calculator only and it also fails. I think that the CDSP 
has Hexagon version v60, that is lower than minimal v68 in the repo. I 
can help with creating an issue, what should I do?
>>
>>>>>>> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists