Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gpu: nova-core: gsp: add sync and async command queue API to `Cmdq`

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 3/1/26 7:03 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Mon Mar 2, 2026 at 11:22 AM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>> On Sat Feb 28, 2026 at 3:11 PM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 2/26/26 7:50 AM, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>>>> Add sync and async command queue API and the type infrastructure to know
>>>> what reply is expected from each `CommandToGsp`.
...
>> For lack of a better idea  i suggest send_and_wait_for_reply +
>> send_no_reply for now.
> 
> One important detail IMHO is that the API cannot be misused, i.e. you
> cannot call the fire-and-forget send method on a command that expects a
> reply. So the risk is mostly when adding support for a new command - but
> if that step is done properly, users will be directed to the right
> method by the compiler.

Naming is not *just* about risk of someone misusing it. It's about
being able to read things on the screen and having a good chance of
understanding it.

> 
> This, I think, allows us to tolerate more ambiguity in the method names,
> as long as their documentation makes up for it. We all agree that

Really, no. Let's do our best on naming, *in addition* to the documentation
and having Rust help lock things down.

> `async` and `sync` are not a good fit, but `send`/`send_noreply` should
> be tolerable (I'd like to keep the names short if possible)
> 
> Or maybe we can use a variant of the trick mentioned by Gary in [1] and
> have a single `send_command` method?
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/DGRJJA3068FV.3CE7J7SKLTN8O@garyguo.net/

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard