[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] Pipe level color management

Deucher, Alexander Alexander.Deucher at amd.com
Fri Jan 22 07:38:31 PST 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Stone [mailto:daniel at fooishbar.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:05 AM
> To: Lionel Landwerlin
> Cc: intel-gfx; Thierry Reding; Deucher, Alexander; dri-devel
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/6] Pipe level color management
> Hi Lionel,
> On 21 January 2016 at 15:03, Lionel Landwerlin
> <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This serie introduces pipe level color management through a set of
> properties
> > attached to the CRTC. It also provides an implementation for some Intel
> > platforms.
> >
> > This serie is based of a previous set of patches by Shashank Sharma and
> takes
> > into account of the comments by Daniel Stone & Daniel Vetter.
> This is a lot more tractable than previous series, thanks! I think a
> lot of the confusion I had around this was from the number of
> hardware-specific features stuffed into this, and the manner in which
> they were stuffed in. For example, with the previous series, it looks
> like you could configure both PRE_CTM and POST_CTM LUTs in 12-bit
> mode, which is impossible as the PRM suggests the only way to have
> both LUTs active is with split-gamma mode. (For anyone else looking at
> the Broadwell PRM, note the split-gamma mode describes the two LUTs
> completely backwards: the only thing that makes sense is for the
> pre-CTM LUT to have a range of 0..1.0, and the post-CTM LUT to have a
> range of -3.0..3.0, rather than the other way around.)
> Now with everything just using split-gamma mode, I'm much happier with
> how this is looking. I took a look at some other architectures to see
> how this would fit, and also had a chat with Richard Hughes to clear
> some things up. AMD seems to support every possible mode under the
> sun, so should support any API we came up with. Most other
> architectures only implemented a single gamma table (equivalent to
> legacy gamma ramp), but there was one I have fairly detailed
> documentation for and also supports everything.
> The degamma/colour-transform-matrix/gamma model is definitely a good
> one, and it seems like everyone agrees on a 3x3 matrix for CTM. So
> far, so good. What I worry about is the _values_ we put into the CTM.
> Intel supports two quite fun properties of matrix output. Firstly, the
> range is (-3.0..3.0) rather than the (0.0..1.0) you might expect.
> Negative values are axis-mirrored, i.e. lut2_index =
> fabs(matrix_output), thus giving us a LUT range of (0.0..3.0).
> Secondly, whilst (0.0..1.0) is represented by linear LUT entries, the
> LUT values for (1.0..3.0) are calculated by a linear interpolation
> between LUT entry #512 (i.e. that for 1.0) and a bonus entry #513
> (value for 3.0). I haven't seen this supported anywhere else, so would
> tend towards mirroring the last value into the extra supernumerary
> entry, i.e. emulate saturation for matrix output values to 1.0.
> I don't really know what to do about negative values as CTM output,
> since the doc I have here is silent on whether negative values are
> similarly axis-mirrored/sign-stripped, or whether they are instead
> clamped to 0.0. Either way, I'm not really sure it's behaviour we can
> rely upon to be portable.
> As a detail, the architecture I'm looking at has mixed granularity for
> the second (post-CTM) LUT: lower RGB-value entries have higher
> granularity (precision in LUT indexing), with lower granularity for
> higher entries. I don't think this is a problem though, since we can
> just decimate in the kernel (i.e. ignore every n'th LUT entry, to
> write a smaller LUT to hardware than we received to userspace).
> Anyway, beyond that, it seems there are a few things we agree on:
>   - optional pre-matrix ('degamma') per-channel LUT of variable
> length, but (from a userspace point of view) fixed precision, input &
> output ranges 0.0..1.0
>   - optional 3x3 matrix with input range [0.0,1.0], with output values
> saturating to 1.0, and negative values producing undefined behaviour
>   - optional post-matrix ('gamma') per-channel LUT of variable length,
> but (from a userspace point of view) fixed precision, input & output
> ranges 0.0..1.0
> This would mean missing some Intel-specific features, but whether or
> not this is actually required I don't really know. At least it seems
> like it would be enough to implement standard ICC profile correction
> from Weston in a hardware-independent manner.
> Thierry, Alex, did you have any comments or ideas on this?

Adding Harry to comment as he's more familiar with our display hardware color management.


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list