Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] accel: add dedicated minor for accelerator devices

[Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>]

On 11/6/2022 2:02 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> --- a/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> +++ b/drivers/accel/drm_accel.c
> @@ -8,14 +8,25 @@
> 
>   #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/xarray.h>

If we are not using xarray at this time, do we still need this include?

> 
>   #include <drm/drm_accel.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_debugfs.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
>   #include <drm/drm_ioctl.h>
>   #include <drm/drm_print.h>
> 
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(accel_minor_lock);
> +static struct idr accel_minors_idr;

I beleive we should have an explicit include for the IDR header.

> --- a/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_accel.h
> @@ -8,12 +8,56 @@
>   #ifndef DRM_ACCEL_H_
>   #define DRM_ACCEL_H_
> 
> -#define ACCEL_MAJOR     261
> +#include <drm/drm_file.h>
> +
> +#define ACCEL_MAJOR		261
> +#define ACCEL_MAX_MINORS	256

This diff seems really weird.  The changes to the ACCEL_MAJOR define 
could get pushed to the previous patch, no?

> @@ -23,9 +67,31 @@ static inline void accel_core_exit(void)
> 
>   static inline int __init accel_core_init(void)
>   {
> +	/* Return 0 to allow drm_core_init to complete successfully */

Move to previous patch?

> --- a/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_drv.h
> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ enum drm_driver_feature {
>   	 * synchronization of command submission.
>   	 */
>   	DRIVER_SYNCOBJ_TIMELINE         = BIT(6),
> +	/**
> +	 * @DRIVER_COMPUTE_ACCEL:
> +	 *
> +	 * Driver supports compute acceleration devices. This flag is mutually exclusive with
> +	 * @DRIVER_RENDER and @DRIVER_MODESET. Devices that support both graphics and compute
> +	 * acceleration should be handled by two drivers that are connected using auxiliry bus.

auxiliry -> auxiliary