Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] new subsystem for compute accelerator devices

[Sonal Santan]

On 11/22/22 06:54, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:46:25PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 09:06, Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/19/22 12:44, Oded Gabbay wrote:
>>>> This is the fourth (and hopefully last) version of the patch-set to add the
>>>> new subsystem for compute accelerators. I removed the RFC headline as
>>>> I believe it is now ready for merging.
>>>>
>>>> Compare to v3, this patch-set contains one additional patch that adds
>>>> documentation regarding the accel subsystem. I hope it's good enough for
>>>> this stage. In addition, there were few very minor fixes according to
>>>> comments received on v3.
>>>>
>>>> The patches are in the following repo:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ogabbay/accel.git/log/?h=accel_v4
>>>>
>>>> As in v3, The HEAD of that branch is a commit adding a dummy driver that
>>>> registers an accel device using the new framework. This can be served
>>>> as a simple reference.
>>>>
>>>> v1 cover letter:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/10/22/544
>>>>
>>>> v2 cover letter:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221102203405.1797491-1-ogabbay@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
>>>>
>>>> v3 cover letter:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221106210225.2065371-1-ogabbay@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
>>>
>>> Thanks for defining the new accel subsystem. We are currently working on
>>> DRM based drivers for unannounced acceleration devices. I am fine with
>>> these changes with the assumption that the choice of using classic DRM
>>> or accel is left up to the individual driver.
>>
>> I don't think that decision should be up to any individual driver
>> author. It will have to be consensus with me/Daniel/Oded and the
>> driver authors.
> 
> Plus the entire point of this is that it's _still_ a drm based driver. So
> aside from changing a flag in the kernel driver and adjusting userspace to
> find the right chardev, there should be zero changes need for an existing
> drm based driver stack that gets ported to drivers/accel.
> 
> And of course if we realize there's issues as we add drivers, we can fix
> things up. This is just to kick things off, not something that's going to
> be cast in stone for all eternity.
> 
> Sonal, with that clarification/explanation, is this entire thing
> reasonable in principal and you can drop an Ack onto the series?
> 
> Thanks, Daniel


Sounds good. The accel patch series is:
Acked-by: Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@xxxxxxx>

-Sonal