Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] gpu: nova-core: run Booter Unloader and FWSEC-SB upon unbinding

["Eliot Courtney" <ecourtney@nvidia.com>]

On Wed May 27, 2026 at 11:02 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Fri May 22, 2026 at 3:59 PM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>> On Thu May 21, 2026 at 10:50 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> When probing the driver, the FWSEC-FRTS firmware creates a WPR2 secure
>>> memory region to store the GSP firmware, and the Booter Loader loads and
>>> starts that firmware into the GSP, making it run in RISC-V mode.
>>>
>>> These operations need to be reverted upon unloading, particularly the
>>> WPR2 secure region creation, as its presence prevents the driver from
>>> subsequently probing.
>>>
>>> Thus, prepare the Booter Unloader and FWSEC-SB firmwares when booting
>>> the GSP, so they can be executed at unbind time to put the GPU into a
>>> state where it can be probed again.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> After seeing the bundle moved outwards, I realised that it has the same
>> issue that SysmemFlush does, i.e. if probe fails it does not reset the
>> GSP. A lot of the time during development I will break things badly
>> enough that probe fails, so it would be nice if this is supported. OTOH,
>> this gets the probe suceed and unload case working which is important
>> and this is a definite improvement, so for this version and the previous
>> version of the patch:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eliot Courtney <ecourtney@nvidia.com>
>>
>> I also had a brief go at making this work on Drop, here is the diff on
>> top of this series. I can send this as a follow up if you would like
>> after cleaning it up, or lmk wdyt:
>
> This is clearly better. It guarantees that the unload sequence is run
> when the `Gpu` is dropped, while preserving its one-shot nature. Also,
> no `Cell` and no awkward output parameter to `Gpu::new`.
>
> The only blind spot remaining would be to also cover the case where a
> failure occurs during `Gsp::boot`, but that's for `Gsp::boot` to handle
> itself imho.
>
> Would you be ok if I folded this into this patch for v7, with your
> `Co-developed-by` and `Signed-off-by`? Then I'll also try to tackle the
> `Gsp::boot` failure scenario using a drop wrapper or something similar.

Yerp that is fine of course. For Gsp::boot it should handle unwinding if
there is a failure but I agree it is orthogonal to this case, so
addressing in a follow-up SGTM.