On Tue, 12 May 2026 14:47:27 +0100 Liviu Dudau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 01:53:56PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Thu, 7 May 2026 11:02:26 +0200 > > Marcin Ślusarz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 06:15:23PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > > @@ -277,9 +286,21 @@ int panthor_device_init(struct panthor_device > > > > > *ptdev) > > > > > return ret; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + /* If a protected heap name is specified but not found, defer > > > > > the probe until created */ > > > > > + if (protected_heap_name && strlen(protected_heap_name)) { > > > > > > > > Do we really need this strlen() > 0? Won't dma_heap_find() fail is the > > > > name is "" already? > > > > > > If dma_heap_find() will fail, then the whole probe with fail too. > > > This check prevents that. > > > > Yeah, that's also a questionable design choice. I mean, we can > > currently probe and boot the FW even though we never setup the > > protected FW sections, so why should we defer the probe here? Can't we > > just retry the next time a group with the protected bit is created and > > fail if we can find a protected heap? > > The problem we have with the current firmware is that it does a number of > setup steps at "boot" > time only. One of the steps is preparing its internal structures for when it > enters protected > mode and it stores them in the buffer passed in at firmware loading. We > cannot later run the > process when we have a group with protected mode set. No, but we can force a full/slow reset and have that thing re-initialized, can't we? I mean, that's basically what we do when a fast reset fails: we re-initialize all the sections and reset again, at which point the FW should start from a fresh state, and be able to properly initialize the protected-related stuff if protected sections are populated. Am I missing something?
