DRM Accel BoF at Linux Plumbers

[Jacek Lawrynowicz]

Hi,

On 21.05.2024 17:10, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 5/21/2024 8:41 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:12 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.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.
Hi!

> 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.
I like it too and I will try to attend. I would maybe add to the list GPU/accel interoperability.

Regards,
Jacek