On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 10:07 AM Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansi...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 AM Dmitry Osipenko > <dmitry.osipe...@collabora.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/16/23 14:52, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> > We have multiple Vulkan context types that are awaiting for the addition >> > of the sync object DRM UAPI support to the VirtIO-GPU kernel driver: >> > >> > 1. Venus context >> > 2. Native contexts (virtio-freedreno, virtio-intel, virtio-amdgpu) >> > >> > Mesa core supports DRM sync object UAPI, providing Vulkan drivers with a >> > generic fencing implementation that we want to utilize. >> > >> > This patch adds initial sync objects support. It creates fundament for a >> > further fencing improvements. Later on we will want to extend the >> > VirtIO-GPU >> > fencing API with passing fence IDs to host for waiting, it will be a new >> > additional VirtIO-GPU IOCTL and more. Today we have several VirtIO-GPU >> > context >> > drivers in works that require VirtIO-GPU to support sync objects UAPI. >> > >> > The patch is heavily inspired by the sync object UAPI implementation of the >> > MSM driver. >> >> Gerd, do you have any objections to merging this series? >> >> We have AMDGPU [1] and Intel [2] native context WIP drivers depending on >> the sync object support. It is the only part missing from kernel today >> that is wanted by the native context drivers. Otherwise, there are few >> other things in Qemu and virglrenderer left to sort out. >> >> [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/21658 >> [2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/digetx/mesa/-/commits/native-context-iris > > > I'm not saying this change isn't good, just it's probably possible to > implement the native contexts (even up to even VK1.2) without it. But this > patch series may be the most ergonomic way to do it, given how Mesa is > designed. But you probably want one of Mesa MRs reviewed first before > merging (I added a comment on the amdgpu change) and that is a requirement > [a]. > > [a] "The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of > that user space project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review > on the mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually > gets the job done." -- from the requirements >
tbh, the syncobj support is all drm core, the only driver specifics is the ioctl parsing. IMHO existing tests and the two existing consumers are sufficient. (Also, considering that additional non-drm dependencies involved.) If this was for the core drm syncobj implementation, and not just driver ioctl parsing and wiring up the core helpers, I would agree with you. BR, -R _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
