On 11/18/25 9:16 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Wed, 2025-11-19 at 11:51 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
I'd prefer if we could reason in terms of functionality instead of
specific chipset versions.
If you can figure it out, I'd be happy to change the code. I wasn't being lazy
when I made this
comment:
// There are two versions of Booter, one for Turing/GA100, and another for
// GA102+. The extraction of the IMEM sections differs between the two
// versions. Unfortunately, the file names are the same, and the headers
// don't indicate the versions. The only way to differentiate is by the
Chipset.
IIUC the relevant factor is that Turing/GA100 have some non-secure
bootloader code as the entry point of booter, which GA102+ doesn't
feature as it is capable of starting in secure mode directly (please
correct me as my understanding is probably incomplete if not outright
wrong).
That sounds about right. There are secure and non-secure sections in the
firmware image.
What is the HW or SW fact that requires this on Turing?
I don't know how to answer that question. That's just how it's done on
Turing/GA100. I would
need to start an internal Slack thread to get a better answer, and I don't
really see what it
would gain us.
Here, would it be reasonable to just create a tiny HAL-like construct
(a trait, I guess) that has the function to call, and it decides which
behavior to use based on the chipset-selected HAL.
In other words, we know very clearly that we need to call one version of
the function for earlier chips, and the other version of the function for
later chips, and the dividing line is because that behavior changed at
a certain chipset.
I think this HAL-centric, chipset-centric approach is fine for some
things, where we really have no reason to care about the internal details.
For other cases, the functionality based partitioning is probably ideal.
Thoughts?
Is it linked
to the fact we need to use PIO for it? What I would like to achieve is
removing or at least reducing these chipset checks into one single
point, which in the worst case could be a method of `Chipset` telling us
which loading method to use. But if we can find a distinguishing factor
in the parsed by this method, that would be even better.
Both OpenRM and Nouveau use the chipset to gate on how to parse the headers.
Yes. That also carries some weight.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
