Re: [PATCH v5 05/11] drm: nova: Add an info ioctl

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Fri Aug 28, 2026 at 5:35 AM CEST, Alistair Popple wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs
> index 0c12ef145981..740466af268d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gpu.rs
> @@ -138,6 +138,11 @@ pub(crate) const fn arch(self) -> Architecture {
>          }
>      }
>  
> +    /// Returns the implementation identifier of this chipset.
> +    pub(crate) const fn implementation(self) -> u32 {
> +        self as u32 & 0xf
> +    }

I missed this part in my previous reply. Besides being a bit unfortunate that we
have to reimplement what boot42.implementation() already gives us, I think the
value is not overly useful anyway.

I get the intent, architecture and implementation complement each other, but in
practice we are not interested in the implementation bits, but either in a
unique chip identifier or the architecture.

If you look at the nova-core code you will find exactly that, we either check
for a specific chip or an architecture and I think userspace will be intersted
in the same.

So, I think the uAPI should provide the architecture and a unique chip
identifier.

Before we circle back, I know that the unique chip identifier in nova-core
technically contains the architecture for obvious reasons, but my point has
always been that we can give the decoded architecture to userspace and not
require it to know about and extract it from the chip identifier we consider
opaque in the uAPI.