On 2025/11/16 09:45, Jonas Karlman wrote:
The SCMI shared memory area is no longer automatically marked as
non-cacheable after the commit a5a0134570c8 ("firmware: scmi: Drop
mmu_set_region_dcache_behaviour() misuse").

This change in behavior cause Rockchip RK3588 boards to fail boot with:

   SoC:   RK3588
   DRAM:  8 GiB
   scmi-over-smccc scmi: Channel unexpectedly busy
   scmi_base_drv scmi-base.0: getting protocol version failed
   scmi-over-smccc scmi: failed to probe base protocol
   initcall_run_r(): initcall initr_dm() failed
   ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ###

Update the memory mapping on RK3588 to mark the SCMI shared memory area
as non-cacheable to fix the SCMI shared memory based transport issue
that prevented RK3588 boards from booting.

Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Kever Yang <[email protected]>

Thanks,
- Kever
---
  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3588/rk3588.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3588/rk3588.c 
b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3588/rk3588.c
index c01a40020896..55d2caab4fec 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3588/rk3588.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3588/rk3588.c
@@ -63,7 +63,20 @@ static struct mm_region rk3588_mem_map[] = {
        {
                .virt = 0x0UL,
                .phys = 0x0UL,
-               .size = 0xf0000000UL,
+               .size = 0x10f000UL,
+               .attrs = PTE_BLOCK_MEMTYPE(MT_NORMAL) |
+                        PTE_BLOCK_INNER_SHARE
+       }, {
+               /* SCMI shared memory area must be mapped as non-cacheable. */
+               .virt = 0x10f000UL,
+               .phys = 0x10f000UL,
+               .size = 0x1000UL,
+               .attrs = PTE_BLOCK_MEMTYPE(MT_NORMAL_NC) |
+                        PTE_BLOCK_INNER_SHARE
+       }, {
+               .virt = 0x110000UL,
+               .phys = 0x110000UL,
+               .size = 0xefef0000UL,
                .attrs = PTE_BLOCK_MEMTYPE(MT_NORMAL) |
                         PTE_BLOCK_INNER_SHARE
        }, {

Reply via email to