[RFC 0/9] nuclear pageflip

[Rob Clark]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:28:43AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Ville Syrjälä
>> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:30:18AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ville Syrjälä
>> >> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:07:49PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:19:59 -0500
>> >> >> > Rob Clark <rob at ti.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Rob Clark <rob.clark at linaro.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > From: Rob Clark <rob at ti.com>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This is following a bit the approach that Ville is taking for atomic-
>> >> >> >> > modeset, in that it is switching over to using properties for everything.
>> >> >> >> > The advantage of this approach is that it makes it easier to add new
>> >> >> >> > attributes to set as part of a page-flip (and even opens the option to
>> >> >> >> > add new object types).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> oh, and for those wondering what the hell this is all about,
>> >> >> >> nuclear-pageflip is a pageflip that atomically updates the CRTC layer
>> >> >> >> and zero or more attached plane layers, optionally changing various
>> >> >> >> properties such as z-order (or even blending modes, etc) atomically.
>> >> >> >> It includes the option for a test step so userspace compositor can
>> >> >> >> test a proposed configuration (if any properties not marked as
>> >> >> >> 'dynamic' are updated).  This intended to allow, for example, weston
>> >> >> >> compositor to synchronize updates to plane (sprite) layers with CRTC
>> >> >> >> layer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can we please name this something different? I complained about this in
>> >> >> > IRC, but I don't know if you hang around in #intel-gfx.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Some suggestions:
>> >> >> > multiplane pageflip
>> >> >> > muliplane atomic pageflip
>> >> >> > atomic multiplane pageflip
>> >> >> > atomic multiflip
>> >> >> > pageflip of atomic and multiplane nature
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nuclear is not at all descriptive and requires as your response shows
>> >> >> > :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> fair enough.. I was originally calling it atomic-pageflip until
>> >> >> someone (I don't remember who) started calling it nuclear-pageflip to
>> >> >> differentiate from atomic-modeset.  But IMO we could just call the two
>> >> >> ioclts atomic-modeset and atomic-pageflip.  (Or even modeset2 and
>> >> >> pageflip2, but that seems much more boring)
>> >> >
>> >> > My plan has been to use the same ioctl for both uses. They'll need
>> >> > nearly identical handling anyway on the ioctl level. I have something
>> >> > semi-working currently, but I need to clean it up a bit before I can
>> >> > show it to anyone.
>> >>
>> >> I do think the atomic-pageflip ioctl really should take the crtc-id..
>> >> so probably should be two ioctls, but nearly identical
>> >
>> > But then you can't support atomic pageflips across multiple crtcs even
>> > if the hardware would allow it. I would hate to add such limitation to
>> > the API. I can immediately think of a use case; combining several
>> > smaller displays to form a single larger display.
>> >
>> > With a unified API you could just add some kind of flag that tells the
>> > kernel that user space really wants an atomic update, and if the
>> > driver/hardware can't do it, it can return an error.
>>
>> well, that is really only a problem for X11..  and atomic flip across
>> multiple crtc's is a potential mess from performance standpoint unless
>> your displays are vsync'd lock.
>
> It won't be truly atomic unless they are vsync locked. But anyways more
> buffers can be used to solve the performance problem. But that's a
> separate issue and in that case it doesn't really matter whether you
> issue separate ioctls for each crtc.

that was basically my thinking.. separate ioctls for each crtc.  The
way my branch works currently, you can do this.  A page-flip on crtc
#2 won't care that there is still a flip pending on crtc #1.

I guess that doesn't strictly guarantee that the two pageflips happen
at the exact same time, but unless you have some way to vsync lock the
two displays, I don't think that is possible anyways.  So I'm not
really sure it is worth over-complicating the ioctl to support two
crtc's.  The error checking in case a vsync is still pending is much
easier in the driver if you know the crtc up-front at the
atomic_begin() point.  Which is why I prefer to pass the crtc_id as a
field in the ioctl.

BR,
-R

>> weston already renders each output individually, rather than spanning
>> a single fb across multiple displays like x11 does.  So this problem
>> really doesn't exist for weston.
>
> It does if you want to make sure the user sees the flip on both displays
> at the same time.
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel