[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAObsKAw174AhGaA13Hyw0ANW=TxJHpK10+OwQGNMVca85Urdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:46:01 +0200
From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>
To: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@...il.com>,
Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
Subject: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers
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?
Cheers,
Tomeu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists