Re: [PATCH 04/22] arm64: dts: qcom: hamoa: Reserve low IOVA range for Iris

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 09:15:48PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/12/2026 6:16 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 06:02:58AM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > On 10/08/2026 17:57, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/10/2026 5:40 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2026 at 09:18:42PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 8/7/2026 6:48 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > > > > > > On 07/08/2026 11:22, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't like the idea of this series, because it_again_
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't tell us
> > > > > > > > > > > the truth about the hardware. This typicall ends up with
> > > > > > > > > > > bigger problems
> > > > > > > > > > honestly...thats all the info i have about the vpu hardware that it
> > > > > > > > > > restricts non pixel to DMA from the 0-600MB range. The same i have been
> > > > > > > > > > trying for a year now
> > > > > > > > > You are not honest here. You also know that there are secure streams,
> > > > > > > > > which have to use their own IOMMU SIDs. And some of them, as far as I
> > > > > > > > > remember, also have memory range restrictions.
> > > > > > > > please read the commit description again, the answer is there.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So I don't necessarily get all of the detail out of the commit log myself.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Could you give some detail to address Dmitry's point.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The question as I read it is - are all of the other potential SIDs
> > > > > > > covered by this change ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I get the query as "secure streams also have their dedicated reserve
> > > > > > regions, so how does this approach helps" - This patch does not reserve any
> > > > > > IOVA for secure streams, only the forward looking subnode can assign
> > > > > > specific reserve for specific streams.
> > > > > > The patch enforces a common IOVA across all streams, and is good enough to
> > > > > > fix the problem we have w.r.t device reset.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, it's not good enough. It defines that both non-secure streams use
> > > > > the provided memory range, it doesn't provide a natural way to later
> > > > > _expand_ it to support secure subnodes, etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We know that there is a problem. We already have been bitten by not
> > > > > describing the hardware as is and using band-aids. Can we now learn the
> > > > > lesson and write a proper hardware description?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > So, if we land these patches, how do extend it later to account for all
> > > > > > > > > of that?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > forward looking design would be subnode, which we can land ontop of this
> > > > > > > > series.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes it should be possible to branch to make subnodes work on-top of this
> > > > > > > - accepting that once this lands it becomes ABI and support for this
> > > > > > > method must be sustained, even after sub-nodes land.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thats the plan. This goes as ABI with subnode to land on top of it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, do you actually plan to support both ABIs? This would also mean
> > > > > moving reserved regions to the subnode.
> > > > 
> > > > How is that different from moving the reserve region when stream IDs
> > > > would also need to move, so be it for the associated memory regions.
> > > > 
> > > > > What prevents us from landing subnodes straight away?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You are well aware of them, but still asking the same. Reasons,
> > > > 1. We have been attempting the subnodes for almost a year with multiple
> > > > pushbacks from multiple maintainers. We are closer and working on it to
> > > > post for iris, followed by venus, once review is acceptable for iris.
> > > > 2. Current solution, in this series, is much easy to apply for all
> > > > kernels and can land faster so that it can fix the reset issue we have
> > > > for already enabled devices.
> > > > 
> > > > Both from timewise and simplicity wise, this proposal is made to address
> > > > the reset issue, while subnode can land ontop of this, without breaking ABI.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Vikash
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > There is another solution.
> > > 
> > > Restrict multiple concurrent streams in both drivers. The failure mode is as
> > > I understand it only triggered by _concurrent_ streams so, restrict that
> > > case in the .c code.
> > 
> > I think this might be the best hot fix for now. Very local, very
> 
> No, it's not. Restricting concurrency does not avoid the reset, it just
> reduces the possibility of occurrence.

Ack. 

> > presice, touching the driver pieces, letting it to continue to exist
> > even after the subnodes have landed to support the legacy case.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry