Re: [PATCH v7 3/8] gpu: nova-core: add TLV parser for firmware files

[Timur Tabi <ttabi@nvidia.com>]

On Tue, 2026-08-04 at 00:21 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > Well, maybe this is where we should return ENODATA?
> 
> Or maybe just ENOENT.
> 
> > I am expecting future Nova code to handle tags that may be legitimately absent, so maybe
> > having
> > it return ENODATA if the tag is missing, and EINVAL in all other situations is better.
> 
> In this case it makes sense to differenciate; AFAIC this can be a follow-up
> patch.

...

> This is what I refer to below as "signed tag".
> 
> Some background on this: We can't have patches as duplicate commits going to
> Linus. So in order for me to pull from the Rust tree, it has to guarantee to not
> change its histroy (which it does not). Besides that, we don't want all the
> commits from another tree, but just a specific one. The normal process for this
> is to put the commit on a separate branch based on a commit base, e.g. some -rc,
> typically -rc1. Then we can create a signed tag from this that can be merged
> into both (or multiple) trees, so the commit only exists exactly once.
> 
> However, this kind of logistics typically only makes sense for features, etc. In
> order to avoid a trivial conflict, it is usually overkill. Which is also why I
> said I'd go for the former.

How about this: replace all ENODATA with EINVAL in this patch for now, and then after drm-rust-
next pulls in my error.rs change from the Rust tree, I replace some of those EINVAL with ENOENT
or ENODATA.