On Mon Sep 8, 2025 at 12:40 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 6:54 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> Add support for custom visiblity to allow for users to control visibility >> of the structure and helpers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs | 46 ++++++++++++++-------------- >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/regs/macros.rs | 16 +++++----- >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs >> b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs >> index 068334c86981..1047c5c17e2d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs >> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ >> /// >> /// ```rust >> /// bitstruct! { >> -/// struct ControlReg: u32 { >> +/// pub struct ControlReg: u32 { >> /// 3:0 mode as u8 ?=> Mode; >> /// 7:4 state as u8 => State; >> /// } > > Maybe mention in the documentation that the field accessors are given > the same visibility as the type - otherwise one might be led into > thinking that they can specify visibility for individual fields as well > (I'm wondering whether we might ever want that in the future?).
Answering my own question: it could be useful! One example is nova-core's `NV_PFALCON_FALCON_HWCFG2::mem_scrubbing` field. It turns into `0` when scrubbing is completed, which is misleading. So to paliate that we introduced a `mem_scrubbing_done` method that works as we want, but the `mem_scrubbing` accessors are still present and can be called by driver code. Making them private would force all callers to use `mem_scrubbing_done`. Another related feature would be a way to make some fields read-only or write-only through an optional parameter. I'm just mentioning these for the record; I'm not suggesting they need to be done for the current series. :)
