On 1/30/26 1:46 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 <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> 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().
Ok, right, I didn't take that into account Konrad
