From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50BE632B9B5; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787599453; cv=none; b=UYIJTXTx5pw+eorjDN0Iu4g0dCd15v+yEa64fJB9wndJ/OJiI3sqlgUMfIrdPasDTyoCqaczLiNU/4jwLiExm0MAX7ISTJKAFmQSlZFs6dZJpsieCINCmQVN7PzKi3I6UTSUV8FDNTIeGWTqSU6qcXIWgTIfLkEcjB90jjVjrUI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787599453; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G9QoI4+ym/7LyUWEV2yKR+PgnLxJt8QRpoDvSKD//hM=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:To:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=DCSYM7dq1JzyAZmWfkjssicK0AwaQxwjukKDRE6NsiAZtn9v7uEod3O+GW96fpk4niwtFDKv64oIlLrHCrUBwIwL2YLgTWnx9peAOrwJ9JEBIHpxILMJGSLlbjGxt9Ds3Pdc1geLdD9UD8dyqLmf8+QIr4EBxV/xqCZHtfiaixs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ua2hD11N; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ua2hD11N" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73B091F000E9; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:24:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787599451; bh=G9QoI4+ym/7LyUWEV2yKR+PgnLxJt8QRpoDvSKD//hM=; h=Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:In-Reply-To; b=Ua2hD11NT1IrtaTLNIHoHhM/Mio61JgVNEJn443df2pVvyrNnjqvYt0frTSIKZ3fw RW6GTO7N9qF8bmPosIMvs+VcBNVxJBE+mqvPHypL2EXO61LRyS3M/PMMytAANCwQHX uIbVLyUmvf1zey94nbUHWtrXKCmSEuB2yaZHciRCsZJqROt4mKyPh0ik4kJU6P07Ii T2sW8qSTVG1f0Rhy/KyvdcvTJOB10iu31S0rHYUHt+vOHYkV+c2v8U7M9XgdtiDb9r VyHJU1jmLB76RBLBiMqOgs0PgPawNcQm8VcyMcrW0ImcxZQz1ZQzAg4lTSYtiEQ8YU if0BBnKHiiI5w== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:24:07 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] drm: nova: Add chipid enum to nova-drm UAPI Cc: "Alistair Popple" , "nova-gpu" , "Alice Ryhl" , "David Airlie" , "Alexandre Courbot" , "Benno Lossin" , "Gary Guo" , "Eliot Courtney" , "John Hubbard" , , , To: "M Henning" From: "Danilo Krummrich" References: <20260811050657.646799-1-apopple@nvidia.com> <20260811050657.646799-4-apopple@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 4:49 PM CEST, M Henning wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 1:12=E2=80=AFAM Alistair Popple wrote: >> +/* >> + * Opaque chipids. These may be used to determine what chip a particula= r GPU is >> + * based on the identifier but the values themselves should not be assu= med to >> + * carry any particular meaning. >> + */ > > You say this is opaque, but the userspace MR you posted already treats > the values as non-opaque in eg. sm_for_chipset. > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/43352/diffs?com= mit_id=3D945a8e7c51939577526974b342c8dc6bafc3372f > So, I guess my question is, is is opaque or not? The PR is outdated and goes back to the first version of this patch series; what's written here is correct. > I don't see much of a reason to make it opaque since the chipset has > had the same structure on the hardware level for 30 years, so I don't > expect it to change too often. Truly treating this as opaque would > likely require a small refactor on the userspace side without much > value. (I realize this has already been discussed a bit on the > previous version.) I don't see much value in having userspace decode this value (again) after = the kernel did it already and can easily provide the required information witho= ut making userspace commit to some encoding in the hardware (even though I do = agree that it is unlikely). OTH, the way chip IDs are derived has changed over the years (BOOT_0 / BOOT= _42 with different register layouts), and I'd rather not have userspace commit = to any particular encoding when the kernel already provides the decoded information. Regarding the refactor in mesa, the Nova uAPI won't follow nouveau anyway, = so I don't want to limit ourselfs here.