On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Greg, I hope this will be good enough for you to merge this code. > > > > So we're officially going to use dri-devel for technical details review > > and then Greg for merging so we don't have to deal with other merge > > criteria dri-devel folks have? > > > > I don't expect anything less by now, but it does make the original claim > > that drivers/misc will not step all over accelerators folks a complete > > farce under the totally-not-a-gpu banner. > > > > This essentially means that for any other accelerator stack that doesn't > > fit the dri-devel merge criteria, even if it's acting like a gpu and uses > > other gpu driver stuff, you can just send it to Greg and it's good to go. > > > > There's quite a lot of these floating around actually (and many do have > > semi-open runtimes, like habanalabs have now too, just not open enough to > > be actually useful). It's going to be absolutely lovely having to explain > > to these companies in background chats why habanalabs gets away with their > > stack and they don't. > > FYI, I fully agree with Daniel here. Habanlabs needs to open up their > runtime if they want to push any additional feature in the kernel. > The current situation is not sustainable. Before anyone replies: The runtime is open, the compiler is still closed. This has become the new default for accel driver submissions, I think mostly because all the interesting bits for non-3d accelerators are in the accel ISA, and no longer in the runtime. So vendors are fairly happy to throw in the runtime as a freebie. It's still incomplete, and it's still useless if you want to actually hack on the driver stack. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
