[PATCH 4/8] drm/panthor: Add support for protected memory allocation in panthor

[Maxime Ripard]

On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 02:43:42PM +0200, Nicolas Frattaroli wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 May 2026 12:08:24 Central European Summer Time Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 04:05:10PM +0200, Ketil Johnsen wrote:
> > > From: Florent Tomasin <florent.tomasin at arm.com>
> > > 
> > > This patch allows Panthor to allocate buffer objects from a
> > > protected heap. The Panthor driver should be seen as a consumer
> > > of the heap and not an exporter.
> > > 
> > > Protected memory buffers needed by the Panthor driver:
> > > - On CSF FW load, the Panthor driver must allocate a protected
> > >   buffer object to hold data to use by the FW when in protected
> > >   mode. This protected buffer object is owned by the device
> > >   and does not belong to a process.
> > > - On CSG creation, the Panthor driver must allocate a protected
> > >   suspend buffer object for the FW to store data when suspending
> > >   the CSG while in protected mode. The kernel owns this allocation
> > >   and does not allow user space mapping. The format of the data
> > >   in this buffer is only known by the FW and does not need to be
> > >   shared with other entities.
> > > 
> > > The driver will retrieve the protected heap using the name of the
> > > heap provided to the driver as module parameter.
> > 
> > I know it's what dma_heap_find asks for, but I wonder if it wouldn't be
> > better in the device tree and lookup through the device node? heaps are
> > going to have a node anyway, right?
> > 
> > This would allow you to have a default that works and not mess to much
> > with the kernel parameters that aren't always easy to change for
> > end-users.
> 
> Hopefully the kernel parameters aren't easy to change for end-users on
> systems that deploy this. :) The use-case is copy protection for embedded
> devices running on locked-down systems. Though admittedly the mechanism
> works even on "tampered"-with systems, as long as the underlying hardware
> implements the access restrictions properly.

I guess it wasn't just about the user tampering it, but also about
distros shipping, say, a signed UKI that would support multiple
platforms with 42 versions of optee but all using panthor. I'm not sure
we can expect a single heap name to work for all of them.

> I'm a bit hesitant about making this DT myself. It would solve the problem
> that panthor could probe before the heap provider and needs to handle
> deferral by itself, but it does mean that we'd be putting software
> configuration into the device tree.

Is it? If the system has a protected allocator, and if panthor
absolutely needs to allocate from that allocator, it's not software
configuration: it's a description of what the platform looks like from
Linux PoV.

Or put it differently, it's not more software than optee is, and yet it
has its own node.

> Having the secure heap be a node with no address would allow the tee
> (or whatever else) to still dynamically allocate it wherever, and let
> us handle the dependency relationship between dma heap and GPU, but
> then we require that tee heap driver implementations play nice with
> this scheme, and bring OF into the dma_heap APIs.

I mean, it's a dma_heap API that we create so we don't bring anything
more to it :)

Maxime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/attachments/20260506/d3f5d258/attachment-0001.sig>