On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 03:19:56PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 8/15/26 3:25 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > The HPASS audio subsystem on the Qualcomm Nord SoC has three QDSP6
> > instances, ADSP0/1/2. They are not independent: ADSP0 owns the resources
> > the other two need (PLLs, AG_NOC, RSCp, CESTA, THROTTLE, QTMR) and
> > initializes them as part of its own boot, so ADSP1/ADSP2 can only cold
> > boot once ADSP0 is up. Their firmware also cannot tolerate one instance
> > going down on its own -- stopping or restarting a single member leaves
> > sysmon/glink_ssr notify requests to the siblings timing out, and the
> > whole cluster unable to recover without manually stopping all three and
> > restarting them in dependency order.
> > 
> > This series models that constraint. A new "qcom,cluster-root" phandle
> > groups the instances; every member carries it, the resource-owning
> > instance included, whose phandle references itself, so both cluster
> > membership and root-ness are answerable from the node being probed alone.
> > Instances without the property -- which is every PAS instance on every
> > other SoC -- keep qcom_pas.cluster NULL and are completely unaffected.
> > 
> > Two invariants fall out of the hardware, and are implemented
> > independently of each other:
> > 
> >  - Root-first bring-up. A dependent member's start blocks until the root
> >    has booted.
> > 
> >  - Coupled, two-phase teardown. Stopping or crashing any member takes
> >    the whole cluster down. Hardware testing showed that whichever
> >    member's PAS/TZ power-off happens chronologically last always fails
> >    its own graceful shutdown ack -- both the sysmon SSCTL QMI ack and
> >    the SMEM-bit/IRQ ack -- regardless of whether that member is the
> >    root. So phase 1 fans the stop out to every participant concurrently
> 
> What!? Is that intended by design? Sounds like a crazy DoS attack surface :/

I'm trying to confirm internally whether this is by design. But at least
this is what I can conclude based on my testing and experimenting.

> Are we perhaps missing something to let the uncrashed DSPs keep running?

Let's see what I can get from the internal team.

Shawn

Reply via email to