linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] soc: qcom: smp2p: Add irqchip state support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <17896786-5984-4ffe-9f4d-3c352b583a63@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 13:27:25 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Deepak Kumar Singh <deepak.singh@....qualcomm.com>,
        Chris Lew <christopher.lew@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Lew <chris.lew@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] soc: qcom: smp2p: Add irqchip state support

On 2/4/26 8:21 AM, Deepak Kumar Singh wrote:
> 
> On 1/30/2026 6:16 AM, Chris Lew wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:26:38PM +0530, Deepak Kumar Singh wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2026 6:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/26 11:38 AM, Deepak Kumar Singh wrote:
>>>>> From: Chris Lew <chris.lew@....qualcomm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> A remoteproc booted during earlier boot stages such as UEFI or the
>>>>> bootloader, may need to be attached to without restarting the remoteproc
>>>>> hardware. To do this the remoteproc will need to check the ready and
>>>>> handover states in smp2p without an interrupt notification. Create
>>>>> qcom_smp2p_start_in() to initialize the shadow state without notifying
>>>>> clients because these early events happened in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add support for the .irq_get_irqchip_state callback so remoteproc can
>>>>> read the current state of the fatal, ready and handover bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <chris.lew@....qualcomm.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <deepak.singh@....qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/soc/qcom/smp2p.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/smp2p.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/smp2p.c
>>>>> index cb515c2340c1..c27ffb44b825 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/smp2p.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/smp2p.c
>>>>> @@ -222,6 +222,39 @@ static void qcom_smp2p_negotiate(struct qcom_smp2p *smp2p)
>>>>>        }
>>>>>    }
>>>>> +static void qcom_smp2p_start_in(struct qcom_smp2p *smp2p)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    unsigned int smem_id = smp2p->smem_items[SMP2P_INBOUND];
>>>>> +    unsigned int pid = smp2p->remote_pid;
>>>>> +    char buf[SMP2P_MAX_ENTRY_NAME];
>>>>> +    struct smp2p_smem_item *in;
>>>>> +    struct smp2p_entry *entry;
>>>>> +    size_t size;
>>>>> +    int i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    in = qcom_smem_get(pid, smem_id, &size);
>>>>> +    if (IS_ERR(in))
>>>>> +        return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    smp2p->in = in;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* Check if version is initialized by the remote. */
>>>>> +    if (in->version == 0)
>>>>> +        return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    for (i = smp2p->valid_entries; i < in->valid_entries; i++) {
>>>>> +        list_for_each_entry(entry, &smp2p->inbound, node) {
>>>>> +            memcpy(buf, in->entries[i].name, sizeof(buf));
>>>> Is there a reason for this copy at all?
>>> I don't see a compelling reason. This code snippet is same as present in
>>> qcom_smp2p_notify_in().
>> My understanding was that we do this copy because we don't want to do a
>> strcmp on memory that the remote could change at any time. Maybe it's
>> overkill but I thought it was considered good practice and as Deepak
>> mentioned, it is similarly present in qcom_smp2p_notify_in().
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> +    /* Check inbound entries in the case of early boot processor */
>>>> "in case a remote processor has already been started"?
>>> This i can update in case new patch set is required.
>>>> Konrad
> 
> Are you expecting new patch for this update or current one is ok?

I don't have any more comments. Bjorn left a review on the previous
version so I'd be happy to see him ack this

Konrad