From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0502B37CD52 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 07:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788940430; cv=none; b=ikbyZwUKcUMlQUVBF6Xsb8Fx+9uppIPfVU+R28Bden84IWNPtpxpqvg0I57FKnzdXUWJNIksP6LhHM6SaSe5twPCyChvzAuXbRkZe0AnHbwZpC4kwgHaOnxDJefiYnGcEEs2ELZEISfTI4IScFJZgCDrCIuNCosookZzTGEjE3A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788940430; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MjEa1mE5Ps6Q3lUg66pSiS+PNEddq3EUs4UY8dMBW3c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=o8RgLqzdqNuc1XO/dOp1oVSglFJEvYIsM0C9JyaT/XehPIagZnEadPbq0MvtWCzvmPvBTnR4i/fXPrrWTLXa130XfU7o2+t9uGaIN21erHR5owuqn02Qh2g8EbDiwsUmIiabrrkFcrEes15lFIBVZ93yKFfnXaVNyw8DCSurKzc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b=awEjX0iD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.b=LDxEvcmd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b="awEjX0iD"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.b="LDxEvcmd" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279865.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 6896Y1lI965221 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 07:53:48 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qualcomm.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= fTXYHOV3KBPJQ32Zh91Zlf5yN7Iu2qtX163LKYkR9as=; b=awEjX0iD51BjJkE8 LwNHHPSHht3oE1KO7F9cPjyuUZ/ZZ3WfSUWKrd3Zueupcsj3uUeQydE5y2DJ+y55 KJUggAzPHNiQU8Qjenkh1pO8F09rxk/riqCs8XLOXT46iowckp7LijOmp6m2gqu+ BB/aoXDDfd2OPM5zhwv6juBu2zBS5OC4kVGE7LMzPz0o6Hit791NO2SkI5WnnhsX NZj3c+gT+PqNxh75knGC0+0yKyq5vba/qmsWUdSy3Bi3hlmVZzluIpR7qzIdf8Ci Z0L7C7CkubJVGNqD4V3kNVSjvQLGCq/cdH8B9ZundNT6skwxpTgizWrVsByKW1k3 fIBT4Q== Received: from mail-pj1-f72.google.com (mail-pj1-f72.google.com [209.85.216.72]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4gjqha2ws4-1 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2026 07:53:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-pj1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39b90cc0d5cso2809285a91.0 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oss.qualcomm.com; s=google; t=1788940428; x=1789545228; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=fTXYHOV3KBPJQ32Zh91Zlf5yN7Iu2qtX163LKYkR9as=; b=LDxEvcmdh3WqLLWnRHOaX2yup/wlIiEUCc32gfsfqAD1D9F5bliirBH0t3gzkyf94h VrYZFZ1lAwRhpjx1nCGNoVGHlsJHg3v30Un3KPGQGVm9c/ZAtV+Q8E8RweDjqnRFS4p8 SNtZTGLOLFMHfQ55g5Mo5NyJm6MmFJCOCx0paOJd+AJ66V+P2lyjPm1OhN6qVIcoWSzg +pl5UkqiGDzq23l6Vd8/zudye6oz3SfE0fmFSScMMSTx3uslMaOX0B2dDuiq/ngkLl9S nPPHXvsY4Xx9cNvyNHE59PuwM+nVMEap+rwGODzyw46nMBnzuO/Ej9h9A1KRBZn0WLKs n1Zw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1788940428; x=1789545228; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=fTXYHOV3KBPJQ32Zh91Zlf5yN7Iu2qtX163LKYkR9as=; b=IynjvZyCE4Yiwi+D/ovLgb5oZBRnKqU54wfZSO5XhW0qLVHJIkeUcT7DId5aSo8Aaw SfV1yR3DooLNesis4vhQuic+eDi1tX0LSwSM6pc6Kgou3MGBWF8JC5jt72c171DIZwgh Kl8n2ku8sIEVlkZ5/CdoF3mOukmvOSabOT/pWWY8p+lIFc630t9z4nF0XNojLYcl7Trt ekXpbmX1MV2QO+C65S0Uw8koDnu7p1IuwZpczRZWMxLg/ROSkvBCuGZ5US5QSQ8s4jIR 1VHNWmAmhtv5wjYPAQXDT/TOWkagkdzZ8F6/XNdeUuj1oRXju2+lxuIauvIQRc1M6q8a a62g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxyrQmxna6ixUv24WPje33oWK4Sm+6ekIACMQaSpE10YG6ETIYFUrLqwJ14vhpUT0+IA2s8UJRejKk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++l0pHlDZE1lWiWcyGORsHGXP0K964MYitjN/F92Kgqwbr4Vk4tl jPNmzAXSRGOrlJw10A2omGXR8ymWtJZyLPgHn9DeFE9T4Gfy5XgxURNJqELfWBHPuBKcPVmIZYJ DGyME0Zwu1/44aeUEiHkTgxV4ft0MLyWALHbz62vaGjBpb4rhEnooatWQTYLYOHc= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0z7aFwujO0F/I7S4+qP9E6yc0ukMm48SOnFijs+hhm/DfjsvGmvA4Jtx9soEE isn4ZWMUBxIvra4XD48GcpYnUp5KoOU5DPjliAXQXTwnK2+4FOPN42+jmuOC468ONQkk9CeMtgx TaRvJtM9kQSqTVm+QBF5RAX+58sXRNW/dXze92Rf7fIM/y3SsSV/B+rAgym2653xfiQU8tagPe1 +hHdAHAd9v70kK4yW+eKqAyUtfyHabuVAS5jh7jCzkD9mbFRORno3dGl3qnE/7KHL5ttSyhfT+L Eh4gMAZVZdiX3Rw8Vi7Jy8eIuLPB06H/nnLCgj6MST6ieW5uJrjpH0coL6TLAgsFkDYAzM41TI+ cTfP7+1i9iHvam9AFP7lQPmFJIhJf+A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:5807:b0:398:9be9:ab8c with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39b26229bd7mr52084962a91.17.1788940426989; Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:53:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:5807:b0:398:9be9:ab8c with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39b26229bd7mr52084889a91.17.1788940426365; Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.219.57.226] ([202.46.23.19]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a92af1059eb24-14324356931sm65319126c88.4.2026.09.09.00.53.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <09f62d84-18ad-4d7a-ad18-9abccfd5e508@oss.qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2026 13:23:34 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] accel/qda: Qualcomm DSP Accelerator driver To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: rob.clark@oss.qualcomm.com, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Oded Gabbay , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , "Joerg Roedel (AMD)" , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Sumit Semwal , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= , Bharath Kumar , Chenna Kesava Raju , srinivas.kandagatla@oss.qualcomm.com, dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, Anandu Krishnan E References: <318f14c2-0e87-4e07-8173-1511dca67d78@kernel.org> <23e31249-cce2-421e-88f7-1a2af66e34b6@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Ekansh Gupta In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwOTA5MDA4NiBTYWx0ZWRfX3b4ImyRq561S QFyMXJqt+iZL+vo64vduN+ryrZrDD0t8AHrCdpBR99ElbDtmYiL2/jI/JQOmSzw08x09Drh1jne jad6SH2t+K8gfxs0HtWEjD+lsIG0gXue83dgSvwx3KsdYfILjGQP6/F8g20hfkt4ds9QXU5tGKZ GpivA8/enddY3mi/g+u3EBEBGNwh/8/snLF7x0s/XCi/oRUnxZqrDDE9BKIuIrlTcB7s02SLcM5 SC96taVtnsqriWcl3HUnQMnWUnn9SMFdd5RQR80WdOHibMkdfOfQTUJP+NK7xAbJex/J2/BtyNy L6FDobXTkj2zF0Y7RmLePUU87nKLJS8nCO2DjXv8cvanGXkzARbNSaUHHZ3ZhFvDHrpc0v8mwMc 3FTKblhpE9Bf6qbFjolhZETuk0dIbwmqwfZ1IfkVp60OLFeZrBaPbZep/JzVL4RmhHJPgJ+0b4y XQUEFckt3pWvX3ZV0HA== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Z5Xc2nRA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6aa1108c cx=c_pps a=RP+M6JBNLl+fLTcSJhASfg==:117 a=j4ogTh8yFefVWWEFDRgCtg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=VdqzKS8jKosA:10 a=s4-Qcg_JpJYA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=u7WPNUs3qKkmUXheDGA7:22 a=Um2Pa8k9VHT-vaBCBUpS:22 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=ZGy5um1dRlDb5ydww_EA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=iS9zxrgQBfv6-_F4QbHw:22 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 11p7tvQ8uhsamC5pfH50rdND1f-U6_fR X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 11p7tvQ8uhsamC5pfH50rdND1f-U6_fR X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: AW1haW4tMjYwOTA5MDA4NiBTYWx0ZWRfX/bjuG+rPjtAY f2O4YFKZd+K2ot5ksJ+qeMWD3m0kZwmnfPqAORXoO2TQtnNiAxZB0WINwSRzQo23NRuumA2v6Ny 5pPSJAV4XFRDNmLOGZSFEN3YbhoQHiw= X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1176,Hydra:6.1.134,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-09-08_03,2026-09-08_03,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2606150000 definitions=main-2609090086 On 09-09-2026 04:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 06:37:00PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >> On 20-08-2026 20:17, Rob Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 11:15 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> On 19/08/2026 17:48, Rob Clark wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 8:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> The rule of usptream development is that we do not accept duplicated >>>>>> code, just because a vendor wants to write something new. This is >>>>>> basically the concept applied all over the drivers tree, where we pushed >>>>>> back against all sorts of duplications all over the vendors. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I miss in this thread is why would there be any exception here. We >>>>>> do not grant exceptions from standard practices on "I want" reasons. >>>>> >>>>> I agree that we should not have duplicated drivers just for vendor >>>>> lolz. But when it comes to adopting common frameworks and integrating >>>>> better into the ecosystem, this doesn't seem like something we should >>>>> actively discourage. I don't think this is a case of vendor lolz, but >>>> >>>> No one discourages it. Following standard Linux kernel practices and >>>> requirements is not discouraging, do not twist the narrative here. >>>> Again, it is standard upstream review telling that we do not duplicate >>>> drivers. Ever, unless there is serious exception needed. >>> >>> I wasn't trying to twist the narrative, just trying to come up with a >>> path forward that isn't "no" or "improve existing driver", since >>> neither of those gets us towards a future using common frameworks. >>> >>>> I asked why there should be an exception granted? Is the reason for >>>> exception following: >>>> "We want to adopt common framework" >>>> ? >>> >>> Possibly? But I don't think we want two drivers to be any sort of >>> long term solution. (Ie. as long as venus/iris have co-exist.) >>> >>>> >>>>> rather reacting to drm/accel emerging as the standard framework for >>>>> this sort of driver. >>>>> >>>>> So how do we get from here to there? >>>> >>>> What is wrong with my proposal? >>> >>> Maybe I missed something, my understanding was your proposal was >>> "Grow/replace/improve existing driver instead of coming with a >>> duplicate".. grow or improve doesn't move us toward common >>> frameworks. Maybe "replace" is a valid option. If there is something >>> I missed, then I apologize. >>> >>> Options I can think of are: >>> >>> 1. Hardware cutoff.. new hw gets new driver, existing hw gets existing >>> driver >>> 2. Backwards compat chardev registered by new driver, providing existing >>> UABI. I'm not 100% sure about the feasibility/drawbacks of this.. >>> AFAIU the fastrpc folks where planning a backwards compat layer in >>> userspace, so maybe it is possible. >>> 3. exception? >>> >>> I'd like to know what the feasibility of #2 is, since at a high level >>> that sounds like the best option. Possibly limit exposure of legacy >>> UABI to existing hw so we don't get into a place of needing to extend >>> the legacy UABI for new hw? >>> >>> But #1 sounds like a non-controversial place to start regardless. >>> Possibly with #2 coming as followup and necessary step before eventual >>> migration to new driver for existing hw? >>> >>> Even if we start with #2, how do we handle first-merge-window >>> bugs/regressions without reverting addition of new driver and removal >>> of old? It seems like we'd need a window of a couple release cycles >>> where both drivers exist? >>> >>> Maybe others have other/better options in mind? >> To all, I'm seeking on the approach I should follow to go ahead here. I >> can work on implementing #1(as per Rob's list) with hw specific >> compatible for v4 if it's acceptable. >> > > I don't see any reason for you to define a "hw specific compatible", > because as you have shown in this series (and as Rob point out), there's > no difference in the "hardware". > > The only reason for your "hw specific compatible" is to make a software > selection in Linux - and that's not what DeviceTree is for. > > > As such, I don't see that you have a DeviceTree problem at all, because > this is a Linux-internal problem. Agreed. > >> #2(compat driver) is something that we are still exploring as we >> couldn't find any standard way to achieve it. We might start a separate >> discussion for that once we have few possible designs with us. >> > > This is the actual problem! > > We have existing user space that depends on the ioctl interface exposed > by the current misc driver. You must not break these. > > Hardware cutoff is not a viable solution, because that's just a > declaration that we'll let the old platforms rotten - or alternatively > you commit to maintain two drivers to the very same feature and quality > level. > > So the only reasonable solution is #2; from there it's a valid question > if you reach that point my stepwise migrating the current misc driver > that solution, or if you present a new driver with the fully backwards > compatible interface, alongside the new ABI. > > > But this does bring to a question which the cover letter should explain > - but doesn't: what problem does this patch series actually solve? > > Regards, > Bjorn Agreed. I'll target #2: QDA implementing the existing fastrpc UABI alongside the new one, rather than a driver split by platform. On how to get there: the blocker we hit in v1 was that legacy fastrpc buffer semantics appeared to need a drm_file, and there's no exported way to construct one outside the DRM core. I want to re-examine that constraint rather than treat it as final, since the legacy interface's own buffer model (a dma_buf fd as the buffer identity, no GEM involved) is not inherently tied to drm_file, that's how the existing misc driver implements it today. I don't have a concrete design yet and would rather work through it here than commit to one prematurely. If anyone has thoughts on how the legacy UABI could be served without requiring a drm_file per session or if I can somehow bind drm_file with chardev by exposing some APIs from DRM core, I'd welcome them. On the cover letter: fair point, and I'll fix it. The problem this series solves is that a miscdevice interface requires us to hand-roll what the accel/DRM subsystem already provides as common infrastructure: GEM for buffer lifecycle and reference counting, PRIME for cross-driver import/export, per-file (per-open) context and handle-namespace isolation, and the existing debug and lifecycle tooling the DRM core already ships. Every accelerator driver added to drivers/accel (habanalabs, ivpu, qaic, rocket) has taken this path for the same reason, rather than each maintaining its own equivalent inside drivers/misc. Building QDA directly on this shared infrastructure, instead of extending fastrpc's own ad hoc buffer and session tracking to cover the same ground, avoids that duplication going forward. I'll put this plainly in the cover letter rather than leaving it implicit. /Ekansh > >> Happy to take any other suggestion also.> >>> BR, >>> -R >> >>