linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] gpu: nova-core: add boot42 support for next-gen GPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <67ddd6fb-1465-420f-aa31-a011fe53253e@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 12:59:32 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
 Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Edwin Peer <epeer@...dia.com>,
 Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
 Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
 Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
 nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Nouveau <nouveau-bounces@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] gpu: nova-core: add boot42 support for next-gen
 GPUs

On 11/15/25 6:13 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
...
>> +impl From<regs::NV_PMC_BOOT_42> for Revision {
>> +    fn from(boot0: regs::NV_PMC_BOOT_42) -> Self {
>> +        Self {
>> +            major: boot0.major_revision(),
>> +            minor: boot0.minor_revision(),
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +}
> 
> Just one nit: similarly to how we are converting the `TryFrom<BOOT_0>
> for Spec` into a `TryFrom<BOOT_42>`, I think we don't need to keep
> `From<BOOT_0> for Revision`. Actually we don't even want it, as using it
> would mean we are relying on BOOT_0 instead of BOOT_42, which this
> patchset nicely makes our only source of truth.
> 
> I'll thus remove the `From<BOOT_0>` implementation before applying.
> 

Yes, leaving it in was an oversight, good catch.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard