On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:07:03PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On 5/19/2020 11:41 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 08:57:38AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > On 5/18/2020 11:08 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 00:12, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Introduction: > > > > > Qualcomm Cloud AI 100 is a PCIe adapter card which contains a dedicated > > > > > SoC ASIC for the purpose of efficently running Deep Learning inference > > > > > workloads in a data center environment. > > > > > > > > > > The offical press release can be found at - > > > > > https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/04/09/qualcomm-brings-power-efficient-artificial-intelligence-inference > > > > > > > > > > The offical product website is - > > > > > https://www.qualcomm.com/products/datacenter-artificial-intelligence > > > > > > > > > > At the time of the offical press release, numerious technology news sites > > > > > also covered the product. Doing a search of your favorite site is likely > > > > > to find their coverage of it. > > > > > > > > > > It is our goal to have the kernel driver for the product fully upstream. > > > > > The purpose of this RFC is to start that process. We are still doing > > > > > development (see below), and thus not quite looking to gain acceptance quite > > > > > yet, but now that we have a working driver we beleive we are at the stage > > > > > where meaningful conversation with the community can occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffery, > > > > > > > > Just wondering what the userspace/testing plans for this driver. > > > > > > > > This introduces a new user facing API for a device without pointers to > > > > users or tests for that API. > > > > > > We have daily internal testing, although I don't expect you to take my word > > > for that. > > > > > > I would like to get one of these devices into the hands of Linaro, so that > > > it can be put into KernelCI. Similar to other Qualcomm products. I'm trying > > > to convince the powers that be to make this happen. > > > > > > Regarding what the community could do on its own, everything but the Linux > > > driver is considered proprietary - that includes the on device firmware and > > > the entire userspace stack. This is a decision above my pay grade. > > > > Ok, that's a decision you are going to have to push upward on, as we > > really can't take this without a working, open, userspace. > > Fair enough. I hope that your position may have made things easier for me. > > I hope this doesn't widen the rift as it were, but what is the "bar" for > this userspace? > > Is a simple test application that adds two numbers on the hardware > acceptable? Make it the real library that you use for your applications that anyone can then also use as well if they have the hardware. Why would you want something "crippled"? > What is the bar "working"? I intend to satisfy this request in good faith, > but I wonder, if no one has the hardware besides our customers, and possibly > KernelCI, can you really say that I've provided a working userspace? How do you know who your customers really are, or who they sell the chips to? I could end up with one of these... :) > > Especially given the copyright owner of this code, that would be just > > crazy and foolish to not have open userspace code as well. Firmware > > would also be wonderful as well, go poke your lawyers about derivative > > work issues and the like for fun conversations :) > > Those are the kind of conversations I try to avoid :) Sounds like you are going to now have to have them, have fun! greg k-h
