On 3/9/26 4:41 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On Mar 9, 2026, at 5:22 PM, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 09:32:08PM +0900, Eliot Courtney wrote: >>> Expose the `hInternalClient` and `hInternalSubdevice` handles. These are >>> needed for RM control calls. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eliot Courtney <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/commands.rs | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/fw/commands.rs | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/commands.rs >>> b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/commands.rs >>> index 4740cda0b51c..2cadfcaf9a8a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/commands.rs >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/commands.rs >>> @@ -197,6 +197,8 @@ fn init(&self) -> impl Init<Self::Command, >>> Self::InitError> { >>> /// The reply from the GSP to the [`GetGspInfo`] command. >>> pub(crate) struct GetGspStaticInfoReply { >>> gpu_name: [u8; 64], >>> + h_client: u32, >>> + h_subdevice: u32, >> >> I would rather have more descriptive names please. 'client_handle',
Maybe it's better to mirror the Open RM names, which are ancient and well known in those circles. Changing them at this point is probably going to result in a slightly worse situation, because there are probably millions of lines of code out there that use the existing nomenclature. However... >> 'subdevice_handle'. Also some explanation of what a client and a sub-device >> mean somewhere in the comments or documentation would be nice. Yes, although I expect you can simply refer to some well known pre- existing documentation from NVIDAI for that! > > Also just checking if we can have repr wrappers around the u32 for clients / > handles. These concepts are quite common in Nvidia drivers so we should > probably create new types for them. > > And if we can please document the terminology, device, subset, clients handles > etc. and add new Documentation/ entries even. > > Thoughts? > This has already been done countless times by countless people I think, and so we don't need to do it again. Just refer to existing docs. btw, as an aside: I'm checking with our GSP firmware team to be sure, but my understanding is that much of this is actually very temporary. Because the GSP team does not want to continue on with this model in which GSP has to maintain that kind of state: an internal hierarchy of objects. Instead, they are hoping to move to an API in which nova would directly refer to each object/item in GSP. And subdevice, in particular, is an old SLI term that no one wants to keep around either. It was an ugly hack in Open RM that took more than a decade to recover from, by moving the SLI concept out to user space. So even though we should document what we're doing now, I would like to also note that we suspect a certain amount of this will disappear, to be replaced with a somewhat simpler API, in the somewhat near future. thanks, -- John Hubbard
