[RFC 00/33] Add Support for Plane Color Pipeline
Shankar, Uma
uma.shankar at intel.com
Wed Aug 30 08:47:37 UTC 2023
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland at amd.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 12:56 AM
> To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar at intel.com>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; dri-
> devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Ville Syrjala
> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>; Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>;
> Simon Ser <contact at emersion.fr>; Melissa Wen <mwen at igalia.com>; Jonas Ådahl
> <jadahl at redhat.com>; Sebastian Wick <sebastian.wick at redhat.com>; Shashank
> Sharma <shashank.sharma at amd.com>; Alexander Goins <agoins at nvidia.com>;
> Naseer Ahmed <quic_naseer at quicinc.com>; Christopher Braga
> <quic_cbraga at quicinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/33] Add Support for Plane Color Pipeline
>
> +CC Naseer and Chris, FYI
>
> See https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/123024/ for whole series.
>
> On 2023-08-29 12:03, Uma Shankar wrote:
> > Introduction
> > ============
> >
> > Modern hardwares have various color processing capabilities both at
> > pre-blending and post-blending phases in the color pipeline.
> > The current drm implementation exposes only the post-blending color
> > hardware blocks. Support for pre-blending hardware is missing.
> > There are multiple use cases where pre-blending color hardware will be
> > useful:
> > a) Linearization of input buffers encoded in various transfer
> > functions.
> > b) Color Space conversion
> > c) Tone mapping
> > d) Frame buffer format conversion
> > e) Non-linearization of buffer(apply transfer function)
> > f) 3D Luts
> >
> > and other miscellaneous color operations.
> >
> > Hence, there is a need to expose the color capabilities of the
> > hardware to user-space. This will help userspace/middleware to use
> > display hardware for color processing and blending instead of doing it
> > through GPU shaders.
> >
>
> Thanks, Uma, for sending this. I've been working on something similar but you beat
> me to it. :)
Thanks Harry for the useful feedback and overall collaboration on this so far.
> >
> > Work done so far and relevant references
> > ========================================
> >
> > Some implementation is done by Intel and AMD/Igalia to address the same.
> > Broad consensus is there that we need a generic API at drm core to
> > suffice the use case of various HW vendors. Below are the links
> > capturing the discussion so far.
> >
> > Intel's Plane Color Implementation:
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/90825/
> > AMD's Plane Color Implementation:
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116862/
> >
> >
> > Hackfest conclusions
> > ====================
> >
> > HDR/Color Hackfest was organised by Redhat to bring all the industry
> > stakeholders together and converge on a common uapi expectations.
> > Participants from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Collabora, Redhat, Igalia and
> > other prominent user-space developers and maintainers.
> >
> > Discussions happened on the uapi expectations, opens, nature of
> > hardware of multiple hardware vendors, challenges in generalizing the
> > same and the path forward. Consensus was made that drm core should
> > implement descriptive APIs and not go with prescriptive APIs. DRM core
> > should just expose the hardware capabilities; enabling, customizing
> > and programming the same should be done by the user-space. Driver should just
> honor the user space request without doing any operations internally.
> >
> > Thanks to Simon Ser, for nicely documenting the design consensus and
> > an UAPI RFC which can be referred to here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/QMers3awXvNCQlyhWdTtsPwkp5ie9bze_hD5
> >
> nAccFW7a_RXlWjYB7MoUW_8CKLT2bSQwIXVi5H6VULYIxCdgvryZoAoJnC5lZgyK1Q
> Wn48
> > 8=@emersion.fr/
> >
> >
> > Design considerations
> > =====================
> >
> > Following are the important aspects taken into account while designing
> > the current RFC
> > proposal:
> >
> > 1. Individual HW blocks can be muxed. (e.g. out of two HW blocks only one
> can be used)
> > 2. Position of the HW block in the pipeline can be programmable
> > 3. LUTs can be one dimentional or three dimentional
> > 4. Number of LUT entries can vary across platforms
> > 5. Precision of LUT entries can vary across platforms
> > 6. Distribution of LUT entries may vary. e.g Mutli-segmented, Logarithmic,
> > Piece-Wise Linear(PWL) etc
> > 7. There can be parameterized/non-parameterized fixed function HW
> blocks.
> > e.g. Just a hardware bit, to convert from one color space to another.
> > 8. Custom non-standard HW implementation.
> > 9. Leaving scope for some vendor defined pescriptive implementation if
> required.
> > 10.Scope to handle any modification in hardware as technology evolves
> >
> > The current proposal takes into account the above considerations while
> > keeping the implementation as generic as possible leaving scope for future
> additions or modifications.
> >
> > This proposal is also in line to the details mentioned by Simon's RFC
> > covering all the aspects discussed in hackfest.
> >
> >
> > Outline of the implementation
> > ============================
> >
> > Each Color Hardware block will be represented by a data structure drm_color_op.
> > These color operations will form the building blocks of a color
> > pipeline which best represents the underlying Hardware. Color
> > operations can be re-arranged, substracted or added to create distinct
> > color pipelines to accurately describe the Hardware blocks present in the display
> engine.
>
> Who is doing the arranging of color operations? IMO a driver should define one or
> more respective pipelines that can be selected by userspace. This seems to be what
> you're talking about after (I haven't reviewed the whole thing yet). Might be best to
> drop this sentence or to add clarifications in order to avoid confusion.
Yes it's the driver who will set the pipeline based on the underlying hardware arrangement
and possible combinations. There can be multiple pipelines possible if hardware can be
muxed or order can be re-arranged (all viable combinations should be defined as a pipeline in driver).
Yeah, I will re-phrase this to help clarify it and avoid any ambiguity.
> >
> > In this proposal, a color pipeline is represented as an array of
> > struct drm_color_op. For individual color operation, we add blobs to
> > advertise the capability of the particular Hardware block.
> >
> > This color pipeline is then packaged within a blob for the user space
> > to retrieve it.
> >
>
> Would it be better to expose the drm_color_ops directly, instead of packing a array
> of drm_color_ops into a blob and then giving that to userspace.
Advantage we see in packing in blobs is that interface will be cleaner. There will be just
one GET_COLOR_PIPELINE property to invoke by user and then its just parsing the data.
This way the entire underlying hardware blocks with pipeline will be available to user.
For a particular hardware block in pipeline, user can get the relevant details from blob
representing that particular block. We have created IGT tests (links mentioned in cover-letter)
to demonstrate how it can be done. This is just to clarify the idea.
Also since info is passed via blobs we have the flexibility to even define segmented LUTs and PWL
hardware blocks. Also we have left scope for custom private hardware blocks as well which driver
can work with respective HAL and get that implemented.
We can even define prescriptive operations as a private entry and enable it if a certain driver and HAL
agree.
> > To advertise the available color pipelines, an immutable ENUM property
> > "GET_COLOR_PIPELINE" is introduced. This enum property has blob id's as values.
> > With each blob id representing a distinct color pipeline based on
> > underlying HW capabilities and their respective combinations.
> >
> > Once the user space decides on a color pipeline, it can set the
> > pipeline and the corresponding data for the hardware blocks within the
> > pipeline with the BLOB property "SET_COLOR_PIPELINE".
> >
>
> When I discussed this at the hackfest with Simon he proposed a new DRM object,
> (I've called it a drm_colorop) to represent a color operation.
> Each drm_colorop has a "NEXT" pointer to another drm_colorop, or NULL if its the
> last in the pipeline. You can then have a mutable enum property on the plane to
> discover and select a color pipeline.
Yes, the proposal is inspired by this idea. Sure, we can work together to enhance the design.
Personally I feel the one proposed in the current RFC will do the same thing envisioned by Simon
and you Harry. Management of the pipeline, addition, deletion and flexibility to represent
hardware is more with blobs with the relevant structures agreed in UAPI.
> This seems a bit more transparent than a blob. You can see my changes
> (unfortunately very WIP, don't look too closely at individual patches) at
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/hwentland/linux/-/merge_requests/5/diffs
>
> libdrm changes:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/hwentland/drm/-/merge_requests/1/diffs
Sure, will check the same.
> IGT changes:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/hwentland/igt-gpu-tools/-/merge_requests/1/diffs
>
> I'll take time to review your whole series and will see whether we can somehow
> keep the best parts of each.
Thanks and agree. Let's work together and get this implemented in DRM.
> Curious to hear other opinions on the blob vs new DRM object question as well.
Yeah, request community and stakeholders to share feedback and suggestions.
We will work on the feedback to improve the design.
> > Refer to Documentation/gpu/rfc/plane_color_pipeline.rst added in the
> > patch
> >
> > IGT and test details
> > ====================
> >
> > A set of IGT tests is written to demonstrate the usage of the proposed
> > UAPIs along with some sanity validation.
> >
> > Details of the IGT test can be found here:
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/123018/
> >
> > Opens
> > =====
> >
> > a. To come up with a list of common HW blocks which can be defined generically
> by the DRM
> > core in agreement with all the stakeholders b. To enhance/finalize
> > the data structure to define segmented LUTs generically.
> >
>
> It would be good to add some basic support in VKMS. My work has been based on
> VKMS. Once we kinda settle on an approach I'll look at exposing the AMD private
> properties from Melissa through the API.
Yeah sure Harry.
> >
> > Out of Scope
> > ============
> >
> > a. The coefficients for CTM and LUT value calculations are out of scope of the
> proposal.
> > b. The onus of programming the HW blocks and their values is on user-space.
> Driver will
> > just provide the interface for the same.
> > c. In order to compute LUT values and coefficients, a helper library can be created
> in
> > user-space. However, it is out of scope for the current proposal.
> >
> > Acknowledgements and credits
> > ============================
> >
> > There are multiple contributors who have helped us to reach to this
> > proposal. Special mention to Ville
> > Syrjala<ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>, Pekka
> > Paalanen<pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>,
> > Simon Ser<contact at emersion.fr>, Harry
> > Wentland<harry.wentland at amd.com>, Melissa Wen<mwen at igalia.com>,
> > Jonas<jadahl at redhat.com>, Sebastian Wick<sebastian.wick at redhat.com>,
> Bhanu<bhanuprakash.modem at intel.com> and
> Shashank<shashank.sharma at amd.com>.
> >
> > Also, thanks to Carlos <csoriano at redhat.com> and the Redhat team for
> organizing the HDR hackfest.
> >
> >
> > UAPI dependency and Usermode development
> > ========================================
> >
> > The current KMS implementation requires a user space consumer for it to be
> accepted upstream.
> > Work is ongoing in weston and mutter community to get color management
> > and HDR support implemented in the respective stacks.
> >
>
> If we can get AMD properties encoded using a Color Pipeline API we can probably
> use gamescope as the userspace vehicle.
Yeah, nice.
> I'm reviewing this in sequence, so there's a chance I'm missing context.
> Please bear with me if some of my comments are answered later in the series.
No worries, really appreciate the feedback and support.
> Again, thanks for sending this.
Always welcome.
Regards,
Uma Shankar
> Harry
>
> >
> ====================================================================
> ==
> > ===========
> >
> > We have tried to take care of all the scenarios and use-cases which
> > possibly could exists in the current proposal. Thanks to everyone who
> > has contributed in all color management discussions so far. Let's work
> > together to improve the current proposal and get this thing implemented in
> upstream linux. All the feedback and suggestions to enhance the design are
> welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Uma Shankar
> > Chaitanya Kumar Borah
> >
> > Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.com>
> > Cc: Simon Ser <contact at emersion.fr>
> > Cc: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland at amd.com>
> > Cc: Melissa Wen <mwen at igalia.com>
> > Cc: Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at redhat.com>
> > Cc: Sebastian Wick <sebastian.wick at redhat.com>
> > Cc: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma at amd.com>
> > Cc: Alexander Goins <agoins at nvidia.com>
> >
> > Chaitanya Kumar Borah (14):
> > drm: Add color operation structure
> > drm: Add plane get color pipeline property
> > drm: Add helper to add color pipeline
> > drm: Manage color blob states
> > drm: Replace individual color blobs
> > drm: Reset pipeline when user sends NULL blob
> > drm: Reset plane color state on pipeline switch request
> > drm/i915/color: Add HDR plane LUT range data to color pipeline
> > drm/i915/color: Add SDR plane LUT range data to color pipeline
> > drm/i915/color: Add color pipelines to plane
> > drm/i915/color: Create and attach set color pipeline property
> > drm/i915/color: Enable plane color features
> > drm/i915/color: Add a dummy pipeline with 3D LUT
> > drm/i915/color: Add example implementation for vendor specific color
> > operation
> >
> > Uma Shankar (19):
> > drm/doc/rfc: Add RFC document for proposed Plane Color Pipeline
> > drm: Add structures for setting color pipeline
> > drm: Add set colorpipeline property
> > drm: Add Enhanced Gamma LUT precision structure
> > drm: Add color lut range structure
> > drm: Add color information to plane state
> > drm/i915/color: Add lut range for SDR planes
> > drm/i915/color: Add lut range for HDR planes
> > drm/i915/color: Add color pipeline for HDR planes
> > drm/i915/color: Add color pipeline for SDR planes
> > drm/i915/color: Add plane color callbacks
> > drm/i915/color: Load plane color luts from atomic flip
> > drm/i915/xelpd: Add plane color check to glk_plane_color_ctl
> > drm/i915/xelpd: Add register definitions for Plane Degamma
> > drm/i915/color: Add color functions for ADL
> > drm/i915/color: Program Plane Pre-CSC Registers
> > drm/i915/xelpd: Add register definitions for Plane Post CSC
> > drm/i915/xelpd: Program Plane Post CSC Registers
> > drm/i915/color: Enable Plane CSC
> >
> > .../gpu/rfc/plane_color_pipeline.rst | 394 ++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c | 21 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c | 218 ++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c | 130 ++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c | 684 +++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.h | 7 +-
> > .../drm/i915/display/skl_universal_plane.c | 21 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 124 ++++
> > include/drm/drm_plane.h | 82 +++
> > include/uapi/drm/drm_mode.h | 196 +++++
> > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 25 +
> > 11 files changed, 1899 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/plane_color_pipeline.rst
> >
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list