在 7/10/2025 3:25 AM, Konrad Dybcio 写道: > On 7/9/25 7:47 AM, Ling Xu wrote: >> Currently the domain ids are added for each instance of domains, this is >> totally not scalable approach. Clean this mess and create domain ids for >> only domains not its instances. >> >> Co-developed-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Ling Xu <[email protected]> >> --- > > [...] > >> @@ -2330,21 +2323,20 @@ static int fastrpc_rpmsg_probe(struct rpmsg_device >> *rpdev) >> case ADSP_DOMAIN_ID: >> case MDSP_DOMAIN_ID: >> case SDSP_DOMAIN_ID: >> - /* Unsigned PD offloading is only supported on CDSP and CDSP1 */ >> + /* Unsigned PD offloading is only supported on CDSP */ >> data->unsigned_support = false; >> - err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, secure_dsp, >> domains[domain_id]); >> + err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, secure_dsp, domain); >> if (err) >> goto err_free_data; >> break; >> case CDSP_DOMAIN_ID: >> - case CDSP1_DOMAIN_ID: >> data->unsigned_support = true; >> /* Create both device nodes so that we can allow both Signed >> and Unsigned PD */ >> - err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, true, >> domains[domain_id]); >> + err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, true, domain); >> if (err) >> goto err_free_data; >> >> - err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, false, >> domains[domain_id]); >> + err = fastrpc_device_register(rdev, data, false, domain); >> if (err) >> goto err_deregister_fdev; >> break; > > Taking a step back, do we realistically need these checks at all? > I would assume that there is a layer of security on the DSP side > that would disallow running code in unsigned PDs on e.g. the ADSP. > > What happens if one skips them and attempts doing just that? > do you mean comment data->unsigned_support lines? On qcs9100, it works normal, test will fail on unsigned PD if it's not supported. but we cannot comment what would happen on old DSPs. I think it will be safer to keep this.
> Konrad -- Thx and BRs, Ling Xu
