Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

[Tomeu Vizoso]

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:35 AM Jacek Lawrynowicz
<jacek.lawrynowicz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> 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 goal?
> >>>>
> >>>> * 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 common
> >>>> 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