Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221102203405.1797491-1-ogabbay@kernel.org> <20221102203405.1797491-2-ogabbay@kernel.org>
 <Y2MMCIe5wND2XPqE@kroah.com> <CAFCwf13uLj=P6u6FAcY8M5qAXoaBdb+Ha-TYj0j2FAZnFAPFYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFCwf12yRUG4593ozJMEwaaJBKyWqXTTCjef9O_fzWdQBxVrtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2kAcCu4z2LUMN7u@nvidia.com> <CAFCwf10K-dTu455QfOK8i6thismY-FUN2Rws830EGiqOcGWFgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2kDzPswkKyZyRpS@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y2kDzPswkKyZyRpS@nvidia.com>
From:   Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 16:02:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFCwf10A=-bj2nR8WasNxyQQ07D24Je04tzKxqv2X_XnA0BUSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] drivers/accel: define kconfig and register a
 new major
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Yuji Ishikawa <yuji2.ishikawa@toshiba.co.jp>,
        Jiho Chu <jiho.chu@samsung.com>,
        Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@linux.intel.com>,
        Maciej Kwapulinski <maciej.kwapulinski@linux.intel.com>,
        stanislaw.gruszka@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 3:10 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > I don't agree with your statement that it should be "a layer over top of DRM".
> > Anything on top of DRM is a device driver.
> > Accel is not a device driver, it is a new type of drm minor / drm driver.
>
> Yeah, I still think this is not the right way, you are getting almost
> nothing from DRM and making everything more complicated in the
> process.
>
> > The only alternative imo to that is to abandon the idea of reusing
> > drm, and just make an independant accel core code.
>
> Not quite really, layer it properly and librarize parts of DRM into
> things accel can re-use so they are not intimately tied to the DRM
> struct device notion.
>
> IMHO this is much better, because accel has very little need of DRM to
> manage a struct device/cdev in the first place.
>
> Jason
I'm not following. How can an accel device be a new type of drm_minor,
if it doesn't have access to all its functions and members ?
How will accel device leverage, for example, the GEM code without
being a drm_minor ?

Librarizing parts of DRM sounds nice in theory but the reality is that
everything there is interconnected, all the structures are
interdependent.
I would have to re-write the entire DRM library to make such a thing
work. I don't think this was the intention.

The current design makes the accel device an integral part of drm,
with very minimal code duplication and without re-writing DRM.

Oded