Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpu: nova-core: gsp: add RM control command infrastructure

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Thu Mar 19, 2026 at 10:06 AM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
> On Wed Mar 18, 2026 at 9:35 PM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> +/// Sends an RM control command, checks the reply status, and returns the raw parameter bytes.
>>> +#[expect(dead_code)]
>>> +fn send_rm_control<T>(cmdq: &Cmdq, bar: &Bar0, cmd: RmControl<'_, T>) -> Result<KVVec<u8>> {
>>> +    let reply = cmdq.send_command(bar, cmd)?;
>>> +
>>> +    Result::from(reply.status)?;
>>> +
>>> +    Ok(reply.params)
>>> +}
>>
>> It still feels wrong to me for this to be a standalone function.
>>
>> It should either be a method of Cmdq, or it should be a method of RmControl,
>> that takes self by value, i.e. either Cmdq::send_rm_ctrl() or RmControl::send().
>>
>> Please choose one of those options.
>
> RmControl::send() seems good to me, will do that one.

Honestly if we can just extend `Cmdq` with a RM-dedicated impl block in
`rm.rs` and make these regular `Cmdq` methods, why are we jumping
through hoops?

RM commands are one kind of command, I don't see why they need to be
sent through an associated function that takes a `Cmdq` as the first
argument anyway.