Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] accel/qda: Qualcomm DSP Accelerator driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 19/08/2026 17:48, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 8:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> 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 asked why there should be an exception granted? Is the reason for
exception following:
"We want to adopt common framework"
?

> 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?

Best regards,
Krzysztof