On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:32:30PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > Hi Rodrigo, > > On 8/31/23 21:10, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with > > > the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged > > > upstream. > > > > > > The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall > > > rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers. > > > > Danilo, do you agree with this? > > if nothing is missing on that front, could you please ack this patch? > > I agree with the above, hence: > > Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> > > However, the documentation below seems to be more about a common DRM_VM_BIND IOCTL? > I guess your commit refers to the end where it talks about common VM_BIND helpers. Yes, it was about a common vm_bind helpers. But if the consensus is to go with the individual drivers vm_bind uapis with common gpu_va, this common drm_vm_bind talk makes no sense anymore. So we can end the talks about it. > > Otherwise the patch is moving the "DRM_VM_BIND" paragraph somewhere below the > "Dev_coredump"paragraph. Is there some kind of "Done-Section" I'm missing? Yes, it moves to a new +Xe – Pre-Merge Goals - Completed +================================ added on patch 2 with devcoredump: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230829163005.54067-2-rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx/ > > - Danilo > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe and any needed GPUVA > > > related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by > > > maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next. > > > -DRM_VM_BIND > > > ------------ > > > -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to > > > -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the > > > -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to > > > -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > > > - > > > -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file > > > -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers > > > -vm_bind ioctls. > > > - > > > -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get > > > -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major > > > -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some > > > -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this > > > -document. > > > - > > > ASYNC VM_BIND > > > ------------- > > > Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get > > > @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to collaborate with devcoredump > > > infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file support > > > for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra print, > > > and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure. > > > + > > > +DRM_VM_BIND > > > +----------- > > > +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to > > > +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the > > > +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to > > > +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > > > + > > > +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file > > > +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers > > > +vm_bind ioctls. > > > + > > > +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get > > > +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major > > > +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some > > > +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this > > > +document. > > > -- > > > 2.41.0 > > > > > >
