Re: [PATCH RFC 01/18] accel/qda: Add Qualcomm QDA DSP accelerator driver docs

[Trilok Soni]

On 2/25/2026 11:40 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 11:16:26AM -0800, Trilok Soni wrote:
>> On 2/25/2026 7:12 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 07:47:08PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2026 9:03 AM, Trilok Soni wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2026 11:08 AM, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> Add initial documentation for the Qualcomm DSP Accelerator (QDA) driver
>>>>>> integrated in the DRM accel subsystem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new docs introduce QDA as a DRM/accel-based implementation of
>>>>>> Hexagon DSP offload that is intended as a modern alternative to the
>>>>>> legacy FastRPC driver in drivers/misc. The text describes the driver
>>>>>> motivation, high-level architecture and interaction with IOMMU context
>>>>>> banks, GEM-based buffer management and the RPMsg transport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The user-space facing section documents the main QDA IOCTLs used to
>>>>>> establish DSP sessions, manage GEM buffer objects and invoke remote
>>>>>> procedures using the FastRPC protocol, along with a typical lifecycle
>>>>>> example for applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, the driver is wired into the Compute Accelerators
>>>>>> documentation index under Documentation/accel, and a brief debugging
>>>>>> section shows how to enable dynamic debug for the QDA implementation.
>>>>> So existing applications written over character device UAPI needs to be
>>>>> rewritten over new UAPI and it will be broken once this driver gets
>>>>> merged? Are we going to keep both the drivers in the Linux kernel
>>>>> and not deprecate the /char device one? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Qualcomm going to provide the wrapper library in the userspace
>>>>> so that existing applications by our customers and developers
>>>>> keep working w/ the newer kernel if the char interface based
>>>>> driver gets deprecated? It is not clear from your text above. 
>>>> Thanks for raising this, Trilok.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the open items that I have. I'm not exactly sure what would be the
>>>> acceptable way for this. 
>>>>
>>>> As you mentioned, applications that rely on /dev/fastrpc* might not work on QDA
>>>> without modification.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking in the same lines as you have mentioned and  having some shim/compat
>>>> driver to translate FastRPC UAPI to QDA. The compat driver would expose the existing
>>>> character devices and route the calls to QDA. The compat driver could be built via Kconfig.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a fundamental requirement, you need to address this in order for
>>> this to move forward.
>>>
>>> Which makes me wonder if it would be possible to reach an accel driver
>>> through incremental transition of the current driver, instead of just
>>> dropping in a few thousand lines of new code/design.
>>>
>>>> However, I haven’t encountered an example of such a UAPI‑translation driver in the kernel
>>>> before, so I would want guidance from maintainers on whether this is an acceptable
>>>> model or not.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding your question about library, all the APIs exposed by github/fastrpc library are kept
>>>> unchanged in terms of definitions and expectation. The same project can be build for both
>>>> FastRPC and QDA based on configure options. So, the applications using github/fastrpc should
>>>> not face any problem if the libs is built with proper configure options.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're assuming that the kernel and userspace are a unified piece of
>>> software, they are not. It must be possible for me to install a new
>>> kernel package without having to replace the userspace libraries.
>>
>> Thank you Bjorn for providing the inputs. 
>>
>> I also foresee that we will be stop adding (or already happened) new features
>> into the existing fastrpc driver, so calling the new driver as an alternative
>> is in oversold category.
>>
>> You are pretty much began the deprecating the existing fastrpc driver, so let's
>> just mention it if that is the case and provide migration/shim path so that
>> existing binaries doesn't break.
> 
> I agree that we need a migration path, but I'd really focus on it after
> getting at least basic parts of the QDA reviewed and agreed upon.
> Otherwise the shim layer will be reworked again and again with no
> immediate added benefit.
> 

I am fine with the review to be continued, this is RFC series anyway. We should also decide
the design of the shim layer here as well. I prefer to not have multiple
RFC revisions here if we don't agree on the basic requirements which
leads to acceptance of this new driver. 

---Trilok Soni