Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>,
        ogabbay@habana.ai, airlied@redhat.com, jglisse@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] HW accel subsystem
Date:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:16:11 -0800
Message-Id: <20190125181616.62609-1-olof@lixom.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMicf17+0x6AUCNrUYu=d4uREVCyH8F2JvUz5fN5+=jW_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOesGMicf17+0x6AUCNrUYu=d4uREVCyH8F2JvUz5fN5+=jW_A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Per discussion in on the Habana Labs driver submission
(https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190123000057.31477-1-oded.gabbay@gmail.com/),
there seems to be time to create a separate subsystem for hw accellerators
instead of letting them proliferate around the tree (and/or in misc).

There's difference in opinion on how stringent the requirements are for
a fully open stack for these kind of drivers. I've documented the middle
road approach in the first patch (requiring some sort of open low-level
userspace for the kernel interaction, and a way to use/test it).

Comments and suggestions for better approaches are definitely welcome.