On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 02:20:31PM +0800, Zhiqiang Hou wrote:
> From: Hou Zhiqiang <[email protected]>
>
> The M33 DRAM address ranges 0xA0000000-0xAFFFFFFF(None Secure)
s/none/non
> and 0xB0000000-0xBFFFFFFF(Secure) are both mapped to
> 0xA0000000-0xAFFFFFFF in the A55 address space.
>
So the M33 has secure and non-secure ranges mapped at the same address in the
A55? Are you sure it is not the other way around, i.e A55 has secure and
non-secure address ranges that both map to the same address on M33?
More details are needed in this changelog.
I'm also wondering how this problem hasn't been fixed before. The original
patch (9222fabf0e39) was merged over 4 years ago...
> These ranges are currently missing from the i.MX93 remoteproc
> address translation table, which may lead to invalid address
> translation for firmware accessing these regions.
>
> Add the missing mappings to complete the DRAM coverage.
>
> Fixes: 9222fabf0e39d ("remoteproc: imx_rproc: Support i.MX93")
The SHA should be 12 characters.
> Signed-off-by: Hou Zhiqiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> V3:
> - Added more info in the changelog.
>
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 7f54322244aca..175c2d3099794 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -198,6 +198,9 @@ static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx93[] =
> {
> { 0x80000000, 0x80000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
> { 0x90000000, 0x80000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
>
> + { 0xA0000000, 0xA0000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
> + { 0xB0000000, 0xA0000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
> +
> { 0xC0000000, 0xC0000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
> { 0xD0000000, 0xC0000000, 0x10000000, 0 },
> };
> --
> 2.43.0
>
