Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 3/4] drm/doc/rfc: Mark DRM_VM_BIND as complete.

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with
> the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged
> upstream.
> 
> The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall
> rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers.

Danilo, do you agree with this?
if nothing is missing on that front, could you please ack this patch?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
> index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
> @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe and any needed GPUVA
>  related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by
>  maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next.
>  
> -DRM_VM_BIND
> ------------
> -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to
> -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the
> -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to
> -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API.
> -
> -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file
> -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers
> -vm_bind ioctls.
> -
> -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
> -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major
> -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some
> -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this
> -document.
> -
>  ASYNC VM_BIND
>  -------------
>  Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
> @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to collaborate with devcoredump
>  infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file support
>  for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra print,
>  and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure.
> +
> +DRM_VM_BIND
> +-----------
> +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to
> +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the
> +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to
> +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file
> +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers
> +vm_bind ioctls.
> +
> +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
> +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major
> +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some
> +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this
> +document.
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>