On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 3:10 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > I don't agree with your statement that it should be "a layer over top of DRM". > > Anything on top of DRM is a device driver. > > Accel is not a device driver, it is a new type of drm minor / drm driver. > > Yeah, I still think this is not the right way, you are getting almost > nothing from DRM and making everything more complicated in the > process. > > > The only alternative imo to that is to abandon the idea of reusing > > drm, and just make an independant accel core code. > > Not quite really, layer it properly and librarize parts of DRM into > things accel can re-use so they are not intimately tied to the DRM > struct device notion. > > IMHO this is much better, because accel has very little need of DRM to > manage a struct device/cdev in the first place. > > Jason I'm not following. How can an accel device be a new type of drm_minor, if it doesn't have access to all its functions and members ? How will accel device leverage, for example, the GEM code without being a drm_minor ? Librarizing parts of DRM sounds nice in theory but the reality is that everything there is interconnected, all the structures are interdependent. I would have to re-write the entire DRM library to make such a thing work. I don't think this was the intention. The current design makes the accel device an integral part of drm, with very minimal code duplication and without re-writing DRM. Oded
