On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 06:33:23AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > At plumbers we decided a direction, I think the direction is good, if > there is refactoring to be done, I'd rather it was done in tree with a > clear direction. > > Coming in now and saying we should go down a different path isn't > really helpful. We need to get rolling on this, we have drivers that > want to land somewhere now, which means we need to just get a > framework in place, leveraging drm code is the way to do it. It is not a different path, at plumbers we decided accel should try to re-use parts of DRM that make sense. I think that should be done by making those DRM parts into libraries that can be re-used, not by trying to twist DRM into something weird. If this thing needs special major/minor numbers, it's own class, its own debufs, sysfs, etc, then it should not be abusing the DRM struct device infrastructure to create that very basic kernel infrastructure. Somehow we ended up with the worst of both worlds. If you want to to be DRM then it should just be DRM and we shouldn't see all this core infrastructue code for debugfs/sysfs/cdevs/etc in thes patches at all. Jason
