Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] gpu: nova-core: gsp: support large RPCs via continuation record

["Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@nvidia.com>]

On Mon Mar 2, 2026 at 8:42 PM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
> Splits large RPCs if necessary and sends the remaining parts using
> continuation records. RPCs that do not need continuation records
> continue to write directly into the command buffer. Ones that do write
> into a staging buffer first, so there is one copy.
>
> Continuation record for receive is not necessary to support at the
> moment because those replies do not need to be read and are currently
> drained by retrying `receive_msg` on ERANGE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eliot Courtney <ecourtney@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs              |   1 +
>  drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/cmdq.rs         |  41 +++++++-
>  drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/continuation.rs | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/fw.rs           |   4 +
>  4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs
> index 174feaca0a6b..ccf56f1ad246 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  
>  pub(crate) mod cmdq;
>  pub(crate) mod commands;
> +mod continuation;

Looking at this series it seems more logical to have `continuation`
under `cmdq` than just `gsp`.

Nothing in `gsp` makes use of it, as it is an implementation detail of
the command queue. And that way the `pub(super)` exports would be
perfectly scoped to their user.

Re-reading my review of v3, I am the one who suggested to put it under
`gsp` - so this is my mistake.

No need to resend just for that, I can fix when applying and this should
have no impact on the patches that come above it.

Giving it a few days to gather reviews, but after a first skim this
looks ready to me.