On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 12:03:06 +1100 Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24/1/19 8:52 am, Olof Johansson wrote: > > But, I think the largest question I have (for a broader audience) is: > > > > I predict that we will see a handful of these kind of devices over the > > upcoming future -- definitely from ML accelerators but maybe also for > > other kinds of processing, where there's a command-based, buffer-based > > setup sending workloads to an offload engine and getting results back. > > While the first waves will all look different due to design trade-offs > > made in isolation, I think it makes sense to group them in one bucket > > instead of merging them through drivers/misc, if nothing else to > > encourage more cross-collaboration over time. First steps in figuring > > out long-term suitable frameworks is to get a survey of a few > > non-shared implementations. > > > > So, I'd like to propose a drivers/accel drivers subtree, and I'd be > > happy to bootstrap it with a small group (@Dave Airlie: I think your > > input from GPU land be very useful, want to join in?). Individual > > drivers maintained by existing maintainers, of course. > > > > I think it might make sense to move the CAPI/OpenCAPI drivers over as > > well -- not necessarily to change those drivers, but to group them > > with the rest as more show up. > > For cxl/ocxl, I have no objection to moving to this new subtree if > that's what we all agree to do. (what do people do about UAPI headers in > this situation? keep them where they are in misc/?) > > If we do go ahead and set up this new subtree, perhaps we can use the > mailing list I set up at linux-accelerators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx but we > haven't really started using... > Assuming the concensus falls behind this... I'll push this for the CCIX drivers as well as those start to turn up. This particularly driver had passed me by until this email so great to get the heads up via that list! Sounds like a good plan in general to me. Jonathan
