Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] accel/qda: Qualcomm DSP Accelerator driver

[Ekansh Gupta]

On 09-09-2026 13:32, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 9/9/26 8:53 AM, Ekansh Gupta wrote:
>>> This is the actual problem!
>>>
>>> We have existing user space that depends on the ioctl interface exposed
>>> by the current misc driver. You must not break these.
>>>
>>> Hardware cutoff is not a viable solution, because that's just a
>>> declaration that we'll let the old platforms rotten - or alternatively
>>> you commit to maintain two drivers to the very same feature and quality
>>> level.
>>>
>>> So the only reasonable solution is #2; from there it's a valid question
>>> if you reach that point my stepwise migrating the current misc driver
>>> that solution, or if you present a new driver with the fully backwards
>>> compatible interface, alongside the new ABI.
>>>
>>>
>>> But this does bring to a question which the cover letter should explain
>>> - but doesn't: what problem does this patch series actually solve?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bjorn
>> Agreed. I'll target #2: QDA implementing the existing fastrpc UABI
>> alongside the new one, rather than a driver split by platform.
>>
>> On how to get there: the blocker we hit in v1 was that legacy fastrpc
>> buffer semantics appeared to need a drm_file, and there's no exported
>> way to construct one outside the DRM core. I want to re-examine that
>> constraint rather than treat it as final, since the legacy interface's
>> own buffer model (a dma_buf fd as the buffer identity, no GEM
>> involved) is not inherently tied to drm_file, that's how the existing
>> misc driver implements it today. I don't have a concrete design yet
>> and would rather work through it here than commit to one prematurely.
>> If anyone has thoughts on how the legacy UABI could be served without
>> requiring a drm_file per session or if I can somehow bind drm_file with
>> chardev by exposing some APIs from DRM core, I'd welcome them.
>>
>> On the cover letter: fair point, and I'll fix it. The problem this
>> series solves is that a miscdevice interface requires us to hand-roll
>> what the accel/DRM subsystem already provides as common
>> infrastructure: GEM for buffer lifecycle and reference counting,
>> PRIME for cross-driver import/export, per-file (per-open) context and
>> handle-namespace isolation, and the existing debug and lifecycle
>> tooling the DRM core already ships. Every accelerator driver added to
>> drivers/accel (habanalabs, ivpu, qaic, rocket) has taken this path for
>> the same reason, rather than each maintaining its own equivalent
>> inside drivers/misc. Building QDA directly on this shared
>> infrastructure, instead of extending fastrpc's own ad hoc buffer and
>> session tracking to cover the same ground, avoids that duplication
> Am sure you must have already tried this, but Can you not migrate
> existing fastrpc driver to this shared infrastructure under the hood?
> 
> Can you elaborate on what are the blockers you hit in doing so?
> 
> This will ensure that UAPI is retained and still get benefit of QDA.
> 

QDA's session model is built around drm_file, and fastrpc's chardev has
no drm_file associated with it. I'm still checking whether that
dependency is unavoidable for fastrpc's case, or whether there's a way
to use the underlying buffer-management infrastructure without it.

Please correct me if you are asking/suggesting a different approach?

> --srini
>> going forward.
>