On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:09:08AM +0200, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 11/10/2024 07:05, Shiraz Hashim wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 08:57:56AM +0200, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 08/10/2024 08:21, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 08:22:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:05:08AM +0200, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > On 04/10/2024 23:23, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > > > > > For Qualcomm SoCs runnning with Qualcomm EL2 hypervisor(QHEE), IOMMU > > > > > > > translation for remote processors is managed by QHEE and if the same SoC > > > > > > > run under KVM, remoteproc carveout and devmem region should be IOMMU > > > > > > > mapped from Linux PAS driver before remoteproc is brought up and > > > > > > > unmapped once it is tear down and apart from this, SHM bridge also need > > > > > > > to set up to enable memory protection on both remoteproc meta data > > > > > > > memory as well as for the carveout region. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enable the support required to run Qualcomm remoteprocs on non-QHEE > > > > > > > hypervisors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c > > > > > > > index ac339145e072..13bd13f1b989 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > + struct of_phandle_args args; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(pdev->dev.of_node, "iommus", "#iommu-cells", 0, &args); > > > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + rproc->has_iommu = true; > > > > > > > + adsp->sid = args.args[0]; > > > > > > > + of_node_put(args.np); > > > > > > > + ret = adsp_devmem_init(adsp); > > > > > > > + if (ret) > > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you get this table from the firmware like presumably > > > > > > QHEE does ? > > > > > > > > > > Well, AFAIK, QHEE(EL2) has this information statically present > > > > > and does not get it from anywhere., but will confirm this > > > > > twice.. > > > > > > > > Double confirmed, device memory region required by remoteproc is > > > > statically present with QHEE. > > > > > > Right, in this case why those tables can't be embedded in the elf > > > .resource_table like it's done with qcom_q6v5_adsp.c by calling > > > rproc_elf_load_rsc_table() and let the remoteproc framework load the > > > resource table and setup the devmem ssmu_map ? > > > > Mainly for two reasons - > > > > firmware images on platforms where we like to bring additional no-qhee > > support do not have resource table. > > > > QCOM PAS implementation for secure remoteproc supports single TZ call > > of auth_and_rest that authenticates and brings remoteproc out of > > reset. And we don't have provision to authenticate resource table > > before it is used for devmem/iommu setup. > > Why not authenticate a separate binary containing the resource table ? > > Adding the resources to DT is a no go since it's clearly related to what > the firmare will be using at runtime, Sorry didn't understand how is it classified as runtime. Similar to resources required to bring up a device, these correspond to resources required to be handled before bringing up a remoteproc. > so either it should go in a .resource_table section or can be moved > in a signed .mbn that can be authenticated by TZ. TZ doesn't have a separate authentication call as of now. If DT is strictly a no go, would moving it to driver itself be an acceptable option ? inline with what Dmitry suggesting. regards Shiraz
