Re: [PATCH v11 03/22] gpu: nova-core: Blackwell: compute PMU-reserved framebuffer size

[John Hubbard]

On 5/31/26 10:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon Jun 1, 2026 at 11:07 AM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Sat May 30, 2026 at 12:09 PM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/fb/hal/gh100.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/fb/hal/gh100.rs
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..c122ac2091f8
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/fb/hal/gh100.rs
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +// SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright (c) 2026 NVIDIA CORPORATION & AFFILIATES. All rights reserved.
>>> +
>>> +use kernel::prelude::*;
>>> +
>>> +use crate::{
>>> +    driver::Bar0,
>>> +    fb::hal::FbHal, //
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct Gh100;
>>> +
>>> +impl FbHal for Gh100 {
>>> +    fn read_sysmem_flush_page(&self, bar: &Bar0) -> u64 {
>>> +        super::ga100::read_sysmem_flush_page_ga100(bar)
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    fn write_sysmem_flush_page(&self, bar: &Bar0, addr: u64) -> Result {
>>> +        super::ga100::write_sysmem_flush_page_ga100(bar, addr);
>>> +
>>> +        Ok(())
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    fn supports_display(&self, bar: &Bar0) -> bool {
>>> +        super::ga100::display_enabled_ga100(bar)
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    fn vidmem_size(&self, bar: &Bar0) -> u64 {
>>> +        super::ga102::vidmem_size_ga102(bar)
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    fn pmu_reserved_size(&self) -> u32 {
>>> +        super::tu102::pmu_reserved_size_tu102()
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    fn frts_size(&self) -> u64 {
>>> +        super::tu102::frts_size_tu102()
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>
>> As of this patch this HAL is strictly equivalent to GA102's, with the
>> first difference between the two introduced by the "larger non-WPR
>> heap". Could you move the introduction of this HAL to this patch as
>> well?
> 
> Actually please let me know if you prefer me to roll this minor change
> and merge the result (and same for the next patch) as we have another
> review and there is little point in respinning just for that. I just
> want to confirm that this wasn't done on purpose for a reason that
> escaped me.

Sure, that's fine. There's no particular reason, other than lots
of patch churn over the months.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard