On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 10:25:46AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 02:36:45PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2026 at 11:08:30PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:58:58PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > > The PAS image initialization path always retains the metadata buffer > > > > when a valid qcom_scm_pas_context is provided, even if the caller does > > > > not require it. This implicit behavior leads to unclear buffer ownership > > > > and forces new users of qcom_mdt_pas_load() to manually release > > > > metadata, which is error‑ prone and incorrect. > > > > > > > > Add a keep_mdt_buf flag to struct qcom_scm_pas_context to make metadata > > > > retention explicit. Metadata buffers are now freed by default and are > > > > only preserved when this flag is set. qcom_q6v5_pas enables this during > > > > probe for contexts that require retained metadata for subsequent PAS > > > > operations, while existing callers continue to work unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > I presume given that this was sent together with the remoteproc patches > > > that this can't be merged until those other changes has made it into the > > > tree. > > > > > > Please confirm if there is an actual dependency here. > > > > I had an expectation that Sumit's patches would get picked up completely > > somehow, which would avoid me adding the extra variable keep_mdt_buf to the > > temporary data structure qcom_scm_pas_context. That's the only dependency. > > > > How on earth do you expect me to figure that out!?
Mistake on my part. Should have mentioned this all as part of the cover letter as the reason for the dependency. Since, we are still uncertain about current merge of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Shall I send this with adding extra variable to qcom_scm_pas_context ? -Mukesh
