On Wed May 6, 2026 at 3:25 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On 5/2/2026 11:41 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> On Sun Apr 26, 2026 at 6:14 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>> Refactor the GSP boot function to return GetGspStaticInfoReply. >>> >>> This enables access required for memory management initialization to: >>> - bar1_pde_base: BAR1 page directory base. >>> - bar2_pde_base: BAR2 page directory base. >>> - usable memory regions in video memory. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Eliot Courtney <[email protected]> >>> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Nikola Djukic <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs | 8 ++++++-- >>> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/boot.rs | 12 ++++++++---- >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs >>> index 0f6fe9a1b955..f2a8915a1ff4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs >>> @@ -21,7 +21,10 @@ >>> }, >>> fb::SysmemFlush, >>> gfw, >>> - gsp::Gsp, >>> + gsp::{ >>> + commands::GetGspStaticInfoReply, >>> + Gsp, // >>> + }, >>> regs, >>> }; >>> >>> @@ -238,6 +241,7 @@ pub(crate) struct Gpu { >>> /// GSP runtime data. Temporarily an empty placeholder. >>> #[pin] >>> gsp: Gsp, >>> + gsp_static_info: GetGspStaticInfoReply, >> >> A short doccomment would be nice, but otherwise this looks good. > > I had added one before, but John suggested to drop it. I could add it back > again > if all agree on what we want to do. I am Ok with either though I'd lean more > to > the fact that its not necessary since it will basically read like the > variable.
Without is fine, the name/type is indeed explicit enough. I was worried that Clippy would start complaining if we need to make this type public once nova-drm calls into nova-core. But we can fix that if it actually happens.
