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
