DRM Atomic property for color-space conversion

[Brian Starkey]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:14:07PM +0200, Sharma Shashank wrote:
>Regards
>
>Shashank
>
>
>On 3/16/2017 4:37 PM, Local user for Liviu Dudau wrote:
>>On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:30:59PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:20:29PM +0200, Sharma, Shashank wrote:
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>Shashank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 3/16/2017 4:07 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:55:41PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:15:46PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:33:29PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:35:13PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:23:24PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We're looking to enable the per-plane color management hardware in
>>>>>>>>>>Mali-DP with atomic properties, which has sparked some conversation
>>>>>>>>>>around how to handle YCbCr formats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As it stands today, it's assumed that a driver will implicitly "do the
>>>>>>>>>>right thing" to display a YCbCr buffer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>YCbCr data often uses different gamma curves and signal ranges (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>BT.609, BT.701, BT.2020, studio range, full-range), so its desirable
>>>>>>>>>>to be able to explicitly control the YCbCr to RGB conversion process
>>>>>>>>>>from userspace.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We're proposing adding a "CSC" (color-space conversion) property to
>>>>>>>>>>control this - primarily per-plane for framebuffer->pipeline CSC, but
>>>>>>>>>>perhaps one per CRTC too for devices which have an RGB pipeline and
>>>>>>>>>>want to output in YUV to the display:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Name: "CSC"
>>>>>>>>>>Type: ENUM | ATOMIC;
>>>>>>>>>>Enum values (representative):
>>>>>>>>>>"default":
>>>>>>>>>>	Same behaviour as now. "Some kind" of YCbCr->RGB conversion
>>>>>>>>>>	for YCbCr buffers, bypass for RGB buffers
>>>>>>>>>>"disable":
>>>>>>>>>>	Explicitly disable all colorspace conversion (i.e. use an
>>>>>>>>>>	identity matrix).
>>>>>>>>>>"YCbCr to RGB: BT.709":
>>>>>>>>>>	Only valid for YCbCr formats. CSC in accordance with BT.709
>>>>>>>>>>	using [16..235] for (8-bit) luma values, and [16..240] for
>>>>>>>>>>	8-bit chroma values. For 10-bit formats, the range limits are
>>>>>>>>>>	multiplied by 4.
>>>>>>>>>>"YCbCr to RGB: BT.709 full-swing":
>>>>>>>>>>	Only valid for YCbCr formats. CSC in accordance with BT.709,
>>>>>>>>>>	but using the full range of each channel.
>>>>>>>>>>"YCbCr to RGB: Use CTM":*
>>>>>>>>>>	Only valid for YCbCr formats. Use the matrix applied via the
>>>>>>>>>>	plane's CTM property
>>>>>>>>>>"RGB to RGB: Use CTM":*
>>>>>>>>>>	Only valid for RGB formats. Use the matrix applied via the
>>>>>>>>>>	plane's CTM property
>>>>>>>>>>"Use CTM":*
>>>>>>>>>>	Valid for any format. Use the matrix applied via the plane's
>>>>>>>>>>	CTM property
>>>>>>>>>>... any other values for BT.601, BT.2020, RGB to YCbCr etc. etc. as
>>>>>>>>>>they are required.
>>>>>>>>>Having some RGB2RGB and YCBCR2RGB things in the same property seems
>>>>>>>>>weird. I would just go with something very simple like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC:
>>>>>>>>>* BT.601
>>>>>>>>>* BT.709
>>>>>>>>>* custom matrix
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think we've agreed in #dri-devel that this CSC property
>>>>>>>>can't/shouldn't be mapped on-to the existing (hardware implementing
>>>>>>>>the) CTM property - even in the case of per-plane color management -
>>>>>>>>because CSC needs to be done before DEGAMMA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, I'm in favour of going with what you suggested in the first place:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A new YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC property, enum type, with a list of fixed
>>>>>>>>conversions. I'd drop the custom matrix for now, as we'd need to add
>>>>>>>>another property to attach the custom matrix blob too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I still think we need a way to specify whether the source data range
>>>>>>>>is broadcast/full-range, so perhaps the enum list should be expanded
>>>>>>>>to all combinations of BT.601/BT.709 + broadcast/full-range.
>>>>>>>Sounds reasonable. Not that much full range YCbCr stuff out there
>>>>>>>perhaps. Well, apart from jpegs I suppose. But no harm in being able
>>>>>>>to deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(I'm not sure what the canonical naming for broadcast/full-range is,
>>>>>>>>we call them narrow and wide)
>>>>>>>We tend to call them full vs. limited range. That's how our
>>>>>>>"Broadcast RGB" property is defined as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK, using the same ones sounds sensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And trying to use the same thing for the crtc stuff is probably not
>>>>>>>>>going to end well. Like Daniel said we already have the
>>>>>>>>>'Broadcast RGB' property muddying the waters there, and that stuff
>>>>>>>>>also ties in with what colorspace we signal to the sink via
>>>>>>>>>infoframes/whatever the DP thing was called. So my gut feeling is
>>>>>>>>>that trying to use the same property everywhere will just end up
>>>>>>>>>messy.
>>>>>>>>Yeah, agreed. If/when someone wants to add CSC on the output of a CRTC
>>>>>>>>(after GAMMA), we can add a new property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That makes me wonder about calling this one SOURCE_YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC to
>>>>>>>>be explicit that it describes the source data. Then we can later add
>>>>>>>>SINK_RGB_TO_YCBCR_CSC, and it will be reasonably obvious that its
>>>>>>>>value describes the output data rather than the input data.
>>>>>>>Source and sink have a slight connotation in my mind wrt. the box that
>>>>>>>produces the display signal and the box that eats the signal. So trying
>>>>>>>to use the same terms to describe the internals of the pipeline inside
>>>>>>>the "source box" migth lead to some confusion. But we do probably need
>>>>>>>some decent names for these to make the layout of the pipeline clear.
>>>>>>>Input/output are the other names that popped to my mind but those aren't
>>>>>>>necessarily any better. But in the end I think I could live with whatever
>>>>>>>names we happen to pick, as long as we document the pipeline clearly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Long ago I did wonder if we should just start indexing these things
>>>>>>>somehow, and then just looking at the index should tell you the order
>>>>>>>of the operations. But we already have the ctm/gamma w/o any indexes so
>>>>>>>that idea probably isn't so great anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I want to avoid confusion caused by ending up with two
>>>>>>>>{CS}_TO_{CS}_CSC properties, where one is describing the data to the
>>>>>>>>left of it, and the other describing the data to the right of it, with
>>>>>>>>no real way of telling which way around it is.
>>>>>>>Not really sure what you mean. It should always be
>>>>>>><left>_to_<right>_csc.
>>>>>>Agreed, left-to-right. But for instance on a CSC property representing
>>>>>>a CRTC output CSC (just before hitting the connector), which happens
>>>>>>to be converting RGB to YCbCr:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>CRTC -> GAMMA -> RGB_TO_YCBCR_CSC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...the enum value "BT.601 Limited" means that the data on the *right*
>>>>>>of RGB_TO_YCBCR_CSC is "BT.601 Limited"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On the other hand for a CSC on the input of a plane, which happens to
>>>>>>be converting YCbCr to RGB:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>RAM -> YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC -> DEGAMMA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...the enum value "BT.601 Limited" means that the data on the *left*
>>>>>>of YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC is "BT.601 Limited".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indicating in the property name whether its value is describing the
>>>>>>data on the left or the right is needed (and I don't think inferring
>>>>>>that "it's always the YCBCR one" is the correct approach).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In my example above, "SOURCE_xxx" would mean the enum value is
>>>>>>describing the "source" data (i.e. the data on the left) and
>>>>>>"SINK_xxx" would mean the enum value is describing the "sink" data
>>>>>>(i.e. the data on the right). This doesn't necessarily need to infer a
>>>>>>particular point in the pipeline.
>>>>>Right, so I guess you want the values to be named "<a> to <b>" as well?
>>>>>Yes, I think we'll be wanting that as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what we might need is something like:
>>>>>enum YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC
>>>>>   * YCbCr BT.601 limited to RGB BT.709 full
>>>>>   * YCbCr BT.709 limited to RGB BT.709 full <this would be the likely default value IMO>
>>>>>   * YCbCr BT.601 limited to RGB BT.2020 full
>>>>>   * YCbCr BT.709 limited to RGB BT.2020 full
>>>>>   * YCbCr BT.2020 limited to RGB BT.2020 full
>>>>>
>>>>>And thanks to BT.2020 we'll need a RGB->RGB CSC property as well. Eg:
>>>>>enum RGB_TO_RGB_CSC
>>>>>   * bypass (or separate 709->709, 2020->2020?) <this would be the default>
>>>>>   * RGB BT.709 full to RGB BT.2020 full

I like this approach, from a point of view of being explicit and
discoverable by userspace. It also happens to map quite nicely to our
hardware... we have a matrix before degamma, so we could do a
CSC + Gamut conversion there in one go, which is apparently not 100%
mathematically correct, but in general is good enough.

... however having talked this over a bit with someone who understands
the detail a lot better than me, it sounds like the "correct" thing to
do as per the spec is:

CSC -> DEGAMMA -> GAMUT

e.g.

YCbCr bt.601 limited to RGB bt.601 full -> degamma ->
	RGB bt.601 full to RGB bt.709 full

So that sounds like what we need to support in the API, and also
sounds more like the "separate properties" approach.

>>>>>
>>>>>Alternatives would involve two properties to define the input and output
>>>>>from the CSC separately, but then you lose the capability to see which
>>>>>combinations are actually supoorted.
>>>>I was thinking about this too, or would it make more sense to create two
>>>>properties:
>>>>- one for gamut mapping (cases like RGB709->RGB2020)
>>>>- other one for Color space conversion (cases lile YUV 709 -> RGB 709)
>>>>
>>>>Gamut mapping can represent any of the fix function mapping, wereas CSC
>>>>can bring up any programmable matrix
>>>>
>>>>Internally these properties can use the same HW unit or even same function.
>>>>Does it sound any good ?

It seems to me that actually the two approaches can be combined into
the same thing:
  * We definitely need a YCbCr-to-RGB conversion before degamma
    (for converting YUV data to RGB, in some flavour)
  * We definitely need an RGB-to-RGB conversion after gamma to handle
    709 layers blended with Rec.2020.
The exact conversion each of those properties represents (CSC + gamut,
CSC only, gamut only) can be implicit in the enum name.

For hardware which has a fixed-function CSC before DEGAMMA with a
matrix after DEGAMMA, I'd expect to see something like below. None of
the YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC values include a gamut conversion, because that
is instead exposed with the RGB_TO_RGB_CSC property (which represents
the hardware matrix)

YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC (before DEGAMMA):
	YCbCr BT.601 limited to RGB BT.601 full
	YCbCr BT.709 limited to RGB BT.709 full
	YCbCr BT.2020 limited to RGB BT.2020 full

RGB_TO_RGB_CSC (after DEGAMMA):
	RGB BT.601 full to RGB BT.709 full
	RGB BT.709 full to RGB BT.2020 full


On the other hand, on hardware which does a CSC + Gamut conversion in
one go, before DEGAMMA (like ours), you might have:

YCBCR_TO_RGB_CSC (before DEGAMMA):
	YCbCr BT.601 limited to RGB BT.601 full
	YCbCr BT.601 limited to RGB BT.709 full
	YCbCr BT.709 limited to RGB BT.709 full
	YCbCr BT.2020 limited to RGB BT.2020 full

RGB_TO_RGB_CSC (after DEGAMMA):
	Not supported

Userspace can parse the two properties to figure out its options to
get from desired input -> desired output. It is perhaps a little
verbose, but it's descriptive and flexible.

>>>It's certainly possible. One problem is that we can't inform userspace
>>>upfront which combinations are supported. Whether that's a real problem
>>>I'm not sure. With atomic userspace can of course check upfront if
>>>something can be done or not, but the main problem is then coming up
>>>with a fallback strategy that doesn't suck too badly.
>>>

The approach above helps limit the set exposed to userspace to be only
those which are supported - because devices which don't have separate
hardware for the two stages won't expose values for both.

>>>Anyways, I don't think I have any strong favorites here. Would be nice
>>>to hear what everyone else thinks.
>>I confess to a lack of experience in the subject here, but what is the more common
>>request coming from userspace: converting YUV <-> RGB but keeping the gammut mapping
>>separate, or YUV (gammut x) <-> RGB (gammut y) ? In other words: I can see the usefulness
>>of having an explicit way of decomposing the color mapping process and control the
>>parameters, but how often do apps or compositors go through the whole chain?
>Right now, more or less the interest is on the RGB->YUV conversion 
>side, coz till now BT 2020 gamut was not in
>picture. REC 601 and 709 have very close gamuts, so it was ok to 
>blend frames mostly without bothering about
>gamut, but going fwd, ones REC 2020 comes into picture, we need to 
>bother about mapping gamuts too, else
>blending Rec709 buffers and Rec2020 buffers together would cause very 
>visible gamut mismatch.
>
>So considering futuristic developments, it might be ok to consider 
>both. Still, as Ville mentioned, it would be good
>to hear from other too.
>

Yeah I agree that we definitely need to consider both for anything we
come up with now.

Cheers,
Brian

>- Shashank
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Liviu
>>
>>>-- 
>>>Ville Syrjälä
>>>Intel OTC
>