Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

[Tomeu Vizoso]

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.

Good point, I'm adding a bunch of people to CC, but I will be for sure
missing at least some, so I would be glad if people can check that
those that they know weren't missed.

Thanks,

Tomeu