On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:35 AM Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 21.05.2024 17:10, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > On 5/21/2024 8:41 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:12 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:46:01AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to use the chance at the next Plumbers to discuss the > >>>> present challenges related to ML accelerators in mainline. > >>>> > >>>> I'm myself more oriented towards edge-oriented deployments, and don't > >>>> know enough about how these accelerators are being used in the cloud > >>>> (and maybe desktop?) to tell if there is enough overlap to warrant a > >>>> common BoF. > >>>> > >>>> In any case, these are the topics I would like to discuss, some > >>>> probably more relevant to the edge than to the cloud or desktop: > >>>> > >>>> * What is stopping vendors from mainlining their drivers? > >>>> > >>>> * How could we make it easier for them? > >>>> > >>>> * Userspace API: how close are we from a common API that we can ask > >>>> userspace drivers to implement? What can be done to further this goal? > >>>> > >>>> * Automated testing: DRM CI can be used, but would be good to have a > >>>> common test suite to run there. This is probably dependent on a common > >>>> userspace API. > >>>> > >>>> * Other shared userspace infrastructure (compiler, execution, > >>>> synchronization, virtualization, ...) > >>>> > >>>> * Firmware-mediated IP: what should we do about it, if anything? > >>>> > >>>> * Any standing issues in DRM infra (GEM, gpu scheduler, DMABuf, etc) > >>>> that are hurting accel drivers? > >>>> > >>>> What do people think, should we have a drivers/accel-wide BoF at > >>>> Plumbers? If so, what other topics should we have in the agenda? > >>> > >>> Yeah sounds good, and I'll try to at least attend lpc this year since it's > >>> rather close ... Might be good to explicitly ping teams of merged and > >>> in-flight drivers we have in accel already. > >> > >> Sounds like a good idea to me. Will check if the people that sent the > >> previous aborted attempts are still interested in this > > > > Looks like the Intel VPU folks are missing from this thread. > Hi! > > > I like the idea of a BoF. I suspect I will be remote but this list of topics looks good to me. Nothing obvious missing from what I can tell. > I like it too and I will try to attend. I would maybe add to the list GPU/accel interoperability. Thanks, that is a really good one. Tomeu
