On 1/16/26 12:21 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 9:15 PM CET, John Hubbard wrote: >> I missed something here. Could you elaborate just a bit more on >> your proposal please? > > Both HALs Ampere and Turing implement the same code to reset the falcon > engine: > > regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_ENGINE::update(bar, &E::ID, |v| > v.set_reset(true)); > > // TIMEOUT: falcon engine should not take more than 10us to reset. > fsleep(Delta::from_micros(10)); > > regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_ENGINE::update(bar, &E::ID, |v| > v.set_reset(false)); > > Instead of repeating this code we can just add a new function > regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_ENGINE::reset() that toggles the bit with a > corresponding delay. > > So far the delay is always the same, should a different delay be required for > another architecture, we can also pass it to > regs::NV_PFALCON_FALCON_ENGINE::reset() as argument, but that doesn't seem to > be > necessary.
That sounds like exactly the right factoring, yes. Thanks for spelling it out in detail. thanks, -- John Hubbard
