linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] soc: qcom: pd-mapper: Add support for SA8775P

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ilkhlru6hbaalwrc6r6m7vyuqhuv3asww4hhmjyqxyuyky3t3a@whtlo5pduecp>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 16:18:45 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Mohammad Rafi Shaik <mohammad.rafi.shaik@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] soc: qcom: pd-mapper: Add support for SA8775P

On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 07:09:06PM +0530, Mohammad Rafi Shaik wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/9/2026 6:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 04:59:46PM +0530, Mohammad Rafi Shaik wrote:
> > > Add support for the Qualcomm SA8775P SoC to the protection
> > > domain mapper. SA8775P share the same protection domain
> > > configuration as SC8280XP with an additional gpdsp domain,
> > > except for charger_pd.
> > > 
> > > Add an entry to the kernel, to avoid the need for userspace
> > > to provide this service.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mohammad Rafi Shaik <mohammad.rafi.shaik@....qualcomm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_pd_mapper.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_pd_mapper.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_pd_mapper.c
> > > index 1bcbe6968..8b899ec7f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_pd_mapper.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_pd_mapper.c
> > > @@ -305,6 +305,18 @@ static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data cdsp_root_pd = {
> > >   	.services = { NULL },
> > >   };
> > > +static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data gpdsp_root_pd = {
> > > +	.domain = "msm/gpdsp/root_pd",
> > > +	.instance_id = 192,
> > > +	.services = { NULL },
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data gpdsp1_root_pd = {
> > > +	.domain = "msm/gpdsp1/root_pd",
> > > +	.instance_id = 241,
> > > +	.services = { NULL },
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >   static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data slpi_root_pd = {
> > >   	.domain = "msm/slpi/root_pd",
> > >   	.instance_id = 90,
> > > @@ -401,6 +413,15 @@ static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data *qcs404_domains[] = {
> > >   	NULL,
> > >   };
> > > +static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data *sa8775p_domains[] = {
> > > +	&adsp_audio_pd,
> > > +	&adsp_root_pd,
> > > +	&cdsp_root_pd,
> > 
> > Is there no separate PD for CDSP1? What is the difference between CDSP
> > and CDSP1?
> > 
> 
> Yes, there is no dedicated PD entry for CDSP1 in the linux‑firmware,
> 
> In the device tree, there is no functional change in CDSP, only the base
> address is different.

So, you can ask this question internally.

> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Rafi.
> 
> > > +	&gpdsp_root_pd,
> > > +	&gpdsp1_root_pd,
> > > +	NULL,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >   static const struct qcom_pdm_domain_data *sc7180_domains[] = {
> > >   	&adsp_audio_pd,
> > >   	&adsp_root_pd_pdr,
> > > @@ -572,6 +593,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_pdm_domains[] __maybe_unused = {
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,qcm2290", .data = qcm2290_domains, },
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,qcm6490", .data = sc7280_domains, },
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,qcs404", .data = qcs404_domains, },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p", .data = sa8775p_domains, },
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7180", .data = sc7180_domains, },
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280", .data = sc7280_domains, },
> > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x", .data = sc8180x_domains, },
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry