Re: [PATCH V1] accel/amdxdna: Add ioctl DRM_IOCTL_AMDXDNA_GET_ARRAY

[Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 8/26/2025 12:55 PM, Lizhi Hou wrote:
> 
> On 8/26/25 10:18, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 8/25/2025 11:48 PM, Lizhi Hou wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/25/25 14:28, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2025 12:23 PM, Lizhi Hou wrote:
>>>>> Add interface for applications to get information array. The 
>>>>> application
>>>>> provides a buffer pointer along with information type, maximum 
>>>>> number of
>>>>> entries and maximum size of each entry. The buffer may also contain 
>>>>> match
>>>>> conditions based on the information type. After the ioctl 
>>>>> completes, the
>>>>> actual number of entries and entry size are returned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>
>>>>
>>>> How does userspace discover whether or not the new IOCTL call is 
>>>> supported?  Just a test call?
>>> The kernel header version will be used to determine whether the 
>>> application which uses new IOCTL will be compiled or not.
>>>
>>
>> But it's not actually an application compile time decision, it's a 
>> runtime decision.  IE I can compile an application with the headers on 
>> kernel 6.18 that has this, but if I try to run it on 6.15 it's going 
>> to barf.
>>
>> To some extent that comes with the territory, but I'm wondering if a 
>> better solution going forward would be for there to be a dedicated 
>> version command that you bump.
> 
> For in-tree driver, I did not aware a common way for this other than 
> checking the kernel version.
> 
> And here is qaic patch of adding a new IOCTL.
> 
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/ 
> commit/217b812364d360e1933d8485f063400e5dda7d66
> 
> 
> I know there is major, minor, patchlevel in struct drm_driver. And I 
> think that is not required for in-tree driver.
> 
> Please let me know if I missed anything.
> 
> Thanks,

Right; so bump up one of those so that userspace can check it.  Maybe 
"minor"?