linux-kernel - Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e22ffdea-3c18-3a23-e526-25809e98fcd9@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 09:10:08 -0600
From: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@...euvizoso.net>,
        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>
Subject: Re: DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

On 5/21/2024 8:41 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:12 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> 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.

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.

-Jeff