[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 00/10] Color Manager Implementation

[Hans Verkuil]

On 07/13/2015 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 07/13/2015 11:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:29:32AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>> On 06/15/2015 08:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:50:48PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:12:31PM +0530, Kausal Malladi wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Kausal Malladi <Kausal.Malladi at intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch set adds color manager implementation in drm/i915 layer.
>>>>>>> Color Manager is an extension in i915 driver to support color 
>>>>>>> correction/enhancement. Various Intel platforms support several
>>>>>>> color correction capabilities. Color Manager provides abstraction
>>>>>>> of these properties and allows a user space UI agent to 
>>>>>>> correct/enhance the display.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I did a first rough pass on the API itself. The big question that
>>>>>> isn't solved at the moment is: do we want to try to do generic KMS
>>>>>> properties for pre-LUT + matrix + post-LUT or not. "Generic" has 3 levels:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   1/ Generic for all KMS drivers
>>>>>>   2/ Generic for i915 supported platfoms
>>>>>>   3/ Specific to each platform
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, I'm quite tempted to say we should give 1/ a shot. We
>>>>>> should be able to have pre-LUT + matrix + post-LUT on CRTC objects and
>>>>>> guarantee that, when the drivers expose such properties, user space can
>>>>>> at least give 8 bits LUT + 3x3 matrix + 8 bits LUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be possible to use the "try" version of the atomic ioctl to
>>>>>> explore the space of possibilities from a generic user space to use
>>>>>> bigger LUTs as well. A HAL layer (which is already there in some but not
>>>>>> all OSes) would still be able to use those generic properties to load
>>>>>> "precision optimized" LUTs with some knowledge of the hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, imo 1/ should be doable. For the matrix we should be able to be
>>>>> fully generic with a 16.16 format. For gamma one option would be to have
>>>>
>>>> I know I am late replying, apologies for that.
>>>>
>>>> I've been working on CSC support for V4L2 as well (still work in progress)
>>>> and I would like to at least end up with the same low-level fixed point
>>>> format as DRM so we can share matrix/vector calculations.
>>>>
>>>> Based on my experiences I have concerns about the 16.16 format: the precision
>>>> is quite low which can be a problem when such values are used in matrix
>>>> multiplications.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, while the precision may be sufficient for 8 bit color component
>>>> values, I'm pretty sure it will be insufficient when dealing with 12 or 16 bit
>>>> color components.
>>>>
>>>> In earlier versions of my CSC code I used a 12.20 format, but in the latest I
>>>> switched to 32.32. This fits nicely in a u64 and it's easy to extract the
>>>> integer and fractional parts.
>>>>
>>>> If this is going to be a generic and future proof API, then my suggestion
>>>> would be to increase the precision of the underlying data type.
>>>
>>> We discussed this a bit more internally and figured it would be nice to have the same
>>> fixed point for both CSC matrix and LUT/gamma tables. Current consensus
>>> seems to be to go with 8.24 for both. Since LUTs are fairly big I think it
>>> makes sense if we try to be not too wasteful (while still future-proof
>>> ofc).
>>
>> The .24 should have enough precision, but I am worried about the 8: while
>> this works for 8 bit components, you can't use it to represent values
>>> 255, which might be needed (now or in the future) for 10, 12 or 16 bit
>> color components.
>>
>> It's why I ended up with 32.32: it's very generic so usable for other
>> things besides CSC.
>>
>> Note that 8.24 is really 7.24 + one sign bit. So 255 can't be represented
>> in this format.
>>
>> That said, all values I'm working with in my current code are small integers
>> (say between -4 and 4 worst case), so 8.24 would work. But I am not at all
>> confident that this is future proof. My gut feeling is that you need to be
>> able to represent at least the max component value + a sign bit + 7 decimals
>> precision. Which makes 17.24.
> 
> The idea is to steal from GL and always normalize everything to [0.0,
> 1.0], irrespective of the source color format. We need that in drm since
> if you blend together planes with different formats it's completely
> undefined which one you should pick. 8 bits of precision for values out of
> range should be enough ;-)

That doesn't really help much, using a [0-1] range just means that you need
more precision for the fraction since the integer precision is now added to
the fractional precision.

So for 16-bit color components the 8.24 format will leave you with only 8 bits
precision if you scale each component to the [0-1] range. That's slightly more
than 2 decimals. I don't believe that is enough. If you do a gamma table lookup
and then feed the result to a CSC matrix you need more precision if you want
to get accurate results.

> Oh and we might need those since for CSC and at least some LUTs you can do
> this.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What does 'those' and 'this' refer to?

> It's probably needed if your destination color space is much smaller
> than the source and you need to expand it. Will result in some clamping
> ofc.
> -Daniel
> 

Regards,

	Hans