Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159051-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <8c55dba5-6308-685e-13da-e728197d8101@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:59:22 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/etnaviv: Create an accel device node if compute-only
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>, Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Russell King <linux+etnaviv@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Christian Gmeiner
	<christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel
 Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        <etnaviv@lists.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
References: <20240424063753.3740664-1-tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>
From: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240424063753.3740664-1-tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/24/2024 12:37 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> If we expose a render node for NPUs without rendering capabilities, the
> userspace stack will offer it to compositors and applications for
> rendering, which of course won't work.
> 
> Userspace is probably right in not questioning whether a render node
> might not be capable of supporting rendering, so change it in the kernel
> instead by exposing a /dev/accel node.
> 
> Before we bring the device up we don't know whether it is capable of
> rendering or not (depends on the features of its blocks), so first try
> to probe a rendering node, and if we find out that there is no rendering
> hardware, abort and retry with an accel node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>
> Cc: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>

I hope Oded chimes in as Accel maintainer.  I think Airlie/Vetter had 
also previously mentioned they'd have opinions on what is Accel vs DRM.

This gets a nack from me in its current state.  This is not a strong 
nack, and I don't want to discourage you.  I think there is a path forward.

The Accel subsystem documentation says that accel drivers will reside in 
drivers/accel/ but this does not.

Also, the commit text for "accel: add dedicated minor for accelerator 
devices" mentions -

"for drivers that
declare they handle compute accelerator, using a new driver feature
flag called DRIVER_COMPUTE_ACCEL. It is important to note that this
driver feature is mutually exclusive with DRIVER_RENDER. Devices that
want to expose both graphics and compute device char files should be
handled by two drivers that are connected using the auxiliary bus
framework."

I don't see any of that happening here (two drivers connected by aux 
bus, one in drivers/accel).

I think this is the first case we've had of a combo DRM/Accel usecase, 
and so there isn't an existing example to refer you to on how to 
structure things.  I think you are going to be the first example where 
we figure all of this out.

On a more implementation note, ioctls for Accel devices should not be 
marked DRM_RENDER_ALLOW.  Seems like your attempt to reuse as much of 
the code as possible trips over this.

-Jeff