On Thu Mar 5, 2026 at 10:29 AM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
> On Wed Mar 4, 2026 at 11:17 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed Mar 4, 2026 at 11:46 AM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> /// Send the [`GetGspInfo`] command and awaits for its reply.
>>> pub(crate) fn get_gsp_info(cmdq: &mut Cmdq, bar: &Bar0) ->
>>> Result<GetGspStaticInfoReply> {
>>> - cmdq.send_command(bar, GetGspStaticInfo)?;
>>> -
>>> - loop {
>>> - match
>>> cmdq.receive_msg::<GetGspStaticInfoReply>(Cmdq::RECEIVE_TIMEOUT) {
>>> - Ok(info) => return Ok(info),
>>> - Err(ERANGE) => continue,
>>> - Err(e) => return Err(e),
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> + cmdq.send_command(bar, GetGspStaticInfo)
>>
>> Also noticed something cool while rebasing the unload series on top of
>> this one: all these command helpers become one-liners and are not really
>> needed anymore! Here we can just make `GetGspStaticInfo` public and call
>> `cmdq.send_command` on it directly in `boot`. It removes a layer of
>> black magic and makes it easier to understand what is going on.
>
> I think this is ok, but we will still need some helpers (e.g. for RM
> control RPCs) that mimic the structure we have here. But there are a
> bunch of simple RPCs like this that can just be called without the
> helper. Do you think it's better to do this and have mixed helper vs
> direct call, or just go all helpers?
Mmm ok, let's keep the current helpers and reconsider once we have RM
controls and more visibility.
