On Wed Nov 12, 2025 at 7:06 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/2025 8:39 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> + // GSP sequencer delay payload structure.
>>> + GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_DELAY_US,
>>> +
>>> + // GSP sequencer register payload structures.
>>> + GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_REG_MODIFY,
>>> + GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_REG_POLL,
>>> + GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_REG_STORE,
>>> + GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_REG_WRITE, //
>>> These ones are a bit trickier to abstract. Since they ever only use
>> `bar` from the sequencer, I guess we can have their semantics in the
>> `fw` module, exposed through a method that receives the `bar`? That way
>> the sequencer won't have to access their members which are private to
>> it.
>
> The sequencer does need access to the private fields, because the logic of
> what
> to write to the bar should be in the sequencer, and that logic depends on the
> fields.
>
> Example:
>
> impl GspSeqCmdRunner for fw::GSP_SEQ_BUF_PAYLOAD_REG_MODIFY {
> fn run(&self, sequencer: &GspSequencer<'_>) -> Result {
> let addr = self.addr as usize;
> if let Ok(temp) = sequencer.bar.try_read32(addr) {
> let _ = sequencer
> .bar
> .try_write32((temp & !self.mask) | self.val, addr);
> }
> Ok(())
> }
> }
>
> Here, the sequencer needs access to `.addr`, `.mask` and `.val` to craft the
> address and the value to write.
>
> I could expose access to those fields as functions, but I think we should not
> move sequencer logic to fw.rs, that should live in the sequencer.
Yeah although I floated the idea I have to admit I am not a big fan of
that either. So I guess we could have accessor functions for the fields,
so the `GspSeqCmdRunner` implementation stays in the sequencer?
It will at least provide the level of abstraction we require against the
firmware types' internal structure.
