Hey Mukesh,
On Tue, 06 Oct 2026 at 15:33:44 +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 11:01:24PM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
On 05/10/26 21:42:24, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 02:54:00PM +0200, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:
> > The firmware resource table is passed to the PAS backend even when the
> > firmware carries none. This only works on the first boot, while the
> > cached pointer and its size are both zero.
> >
> > Stopping the remote processor, or failing to start it, frees the cached
> > table and clears the pointer but leaves the size set. The next start
> > then pairs a NULL table with a non-zero size.
> >
> > The SCM backend substitutes an empty table and hides the problem. The
> > TEE backend copies from the NULL pointer:
> >
> > remoteproc remoteproc2: powering up cdsp
> > pc : __pi_memcpy_generic+0x110/0x22c
> > lr : qcom_pas_tee_get_rsc_table+0xf4/0x25c
> > Call trace:
> > __pi_memcpy_generic+0x110/0x22c (P)
> > qcom_pas_get_rsc_table+0x38/0x60
> > qcom_pas_parse_firmware+0xa0/0x100
> > rproc_boot+0x2d4/0x380
> > state_store+0x40/0x100
> >
> > Fixes: a4584bff63c8 ("remoteproc: pas: Extend parse_fw callback to fetch
resources via SMC call")
> > Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > index a005546c265d..e871e03ba794 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static int qcom_pas_parse_firmware(struct rproc *rproc,
const struct firmware *f
> > struct resource_table *table = NULL;
> > size_t output_rt_size;
> > void *output_rt;
> > - size_t table_sz;
> > + size_t table_sz = 0;
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = qcom_register_dump_segments(rproc, fw);
> > @@ -476,11 +476,12 @@ static int qcom_pas_parse_firmware(struct rproc
*rproc, const struct firmware *f
> > return 0;
> >
> > ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret) {
> > dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "Failed to load resource table from
firmware\n");
> > -
> > - table = rproc->table_ptr;
> > - table_sz = rproc->table_sz;
> > + } else {
> > + table = rproc->table_ptr;
> > + table_sz = rproc->table_sz;
> > + }
>
>
> Earlier code was intentional please read the comment below.. /**...*/
>
AFAICS the comments say that the call might pass NULL and zero as input
resources. And this patch does exactly that - it doesnt allow NULL and
non-zero.
did I miss something?
No, you did not miss anything.. I just wanted to highlight that I
did not keep else statement in my initial implementation
intentionally and relied table_ptr and size will be NULL on
failure of rproc_elf_load_rsc_table()..
Looks like you still haven't understood the problem this patch is trying
to solve. It's the PIL restart sequence where the table_ptr is NULL and
size being passed as non-zero which is incorrect from caller point of
view.
The backend will surely error out in this case. On a restart you again
have to pass the table_ptr as NULL with size as 0 to fetch the resource
table again. Surely we don't want the backend to hide errors on client
part here.
-Sumit
