Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191837-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAObsKAw174AhGaA13Hyw0ANW=TxJHpK10+OwQGNMVca85Urdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZkyPoIXBeBUqFJ48@phenom.ffwll.local> <CAAObsKAJvgg54zBEP-e3PKPLVeX+akZFJudjutjzVVZOJa-41g@mail.gmail.com>
 <e22ffdea-3c18-3a23-e526-25809e98fcd9@quicinc.com> <b19b95ca-c235-4738-a586-bfd1a36183dc@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b19b95ca-c235-4738-a586-bfd1a36183dc@linux.intel.com>
From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@tomeuvizoso.net>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 09:09:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAObsKCdU5_O7HgcPQ3SHAuSbCKFPU494GS9dazZ9CfPtvgtcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers
To: Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>, 
	Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, 
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:35=E2=80=AFAM Jacek Lawrynowicz
<jacek.lawrynowicz@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 21.05.2024 17:10, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > On 5/21/2024 8:41 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:12=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch=
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:46:01AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to use the chance at the next Plumbers to discuss the
> >>>> present challenges related to ML accelerators in mainline.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm myself more oriented towards edge-oriented deployments, and don'=
t
> >>>> know enough about how these accelerators are being used in the cloud
> >>>> (and maybe desktop?) to tell if there is enough overlap to warrant a
> >>>> common BoF.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, these are the topics I would like to discuss, some
> >>>> probably more relevant to the edge than to the cloud or desktop:
> >>>>
> >>>> * What is stopping vendors from mainlining their drivers?
> >>>>
> >>>> * How could we make it easier for them?
> >>>>
> >>>> * Userspace API: how close are we from a common API that we can ask
> >>>> userspace drivers to implement? What can be done to further this goa=
l?
> >>>>
> >>>> * Automated testing: DRM CI can be used, but would be good to have a
> >>>> common test suite to run there. This is probably dependent on a comm=
on
> >>>> userspace API.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Other shared userspace infrastructure (compiler, execution,
> >>>> synchronization, virtualization, ...)
> >>>>
> >>>> * Firmware-mediated IP: what should we do about it, if anything?
> >>>>
> >>>> * Any standing issues in DRM infra (GEM, gpu scheduler, DMABuf, etc)
> >>>> that are hurting accel drivers?
> >>>>
> >>>> What do people think, should we have a drivers/accel-wide BoF at
> >>>> Plumbers? If so, what other topics should we have in the agenda?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah sounds good, and I'll try to at least attend lpc this year since=
 it's
> >>> rather close ... Might be good to explicitly ping teams of merged and
> >>> in-flight drivers we have in accel already.
> >>
> >> Sounds like a good idea to me. Will check if the people that sent the
> >> previous aborted attempts are still interested in this
> >
> > Looks like the Intel VPU folks are missing from this thread.
> Hi!
>
> > I like the idea of a BoF.  I suspect I will be remote but this list of =
topics looks good to me.  Nothing obvious missing from what I can tell.
> I like it too and I will try to attend. I would maybe add to the list GPU=
/accel interoperability.

Thanks, that is a really good one.

Tomeu