[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a6eb246fd6997cd3a70db7cdb15e143@dakr.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 07:02:22 +0800
From: Danilo Krummrich <kernel@...r.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Miguel
Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 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>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, John
Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Joel
Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>, Edwin Peer
<epeer@...dia.com>, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Nouveau
<nouveau-bounces@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] gpu: nova-core: Fixups for GSP message queue and
bindings
On 2025-12-08 18:06, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Sun Nov 23, 2025 at 2:12 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> This series contains a few fixups for the recently merged GSP
>> command-queue code, by order of importance:
>>
>> - Some explicit padding required to safely implement `AsBytes` was
>> missing in the bindings,
>> - A bug in the received message length calculation results in the
>> message handler being given more data than it should,
>> - `MaybeZeroable` is now derived by the kernel's bindgen, but the Nova
>> bindings have not been updated for that,
>> - Some items in the bindings were referred to using the version module
>> directly, instead of the alias we defined to limit the diff when we
>> upgrade firmware versions.
>>
>> All of them address "bugs" (with the first two fixing actual
>> correctness
>> issues), but since Nova does not do much anyway, they are also not
>> absolutely critical and can wait -rc1 if we prefer to do so.
>
> Alice, Danilo, how would you like to proceed with this series? We could
> either:
>
> * Merge this into `drm-rust-next` if you are planning on sending
> another
> before -rc1,
> * Wait until -rc1 gets released and send it via `drm-rust-fixes` for
> -rc2,
> * ... or just take it for 6.20, as it is not absolutely critical.
>
> I am not very familiar with how to do things after the merge window has
> opened, so appreciate your guidance here.
Let’s wait for -rc1 and subsequently queue them up in drm-rust-fixes.
Currently we are not running a -next-fixes scheme, so -next is closed
until -rc1 is released.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists