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

Daniel Stone daniel at fooishbar.org
Fri Jan 22 09:07:53 PST 2016


On 22 January 2016 at 16:21, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:06:15PM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
>> On 22/01/16 15:04, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> >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.
>> There might be some interest from others to have a single 12bits post csc
>> gamma LUT.
>> So I was going to submit another serie to enable this as a special case just
>> for some generations of the Intel hardware once this work lands.
>> Obviously in order to program the hardware in that mode you would need to a
>> userspace specially tuned for the particular platform on which it's running.
>> This mode wouldn't be exposed through the current set of properties.
> Yeah, the idea there is that we don't tell this userspace explicitly, but
> it can be used, i.e.
> a) in the config properties we advertise the sizes of the split gamma
> table
> b) but when userspace supplies an atomic request that matches the larger
> 12bit gamma, and no pre-ctm gamma, then we'll use that.

Right, exactly. My concern was mainly that it seemed incredibly easy
to program broken state (12-bit LUT seemingly active both pre- and
post-CTM). I honestly wasn't sure whether the code or my expectations
were wrong though. But adding it back properly is just fine.

>> >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.
>> It's good you mention this, because I wrote a test assuming negative values
>> would be clamped to (0.0..1.0) and the test passes :/
>> So maybe there is something fishy here...

Hmm, the doc explicitly mentions the axis-mirroring/sign-stripping,
but is either so weird or so incorrect that I think you'd probably
only be able to tell empirically. ;)

>> >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.
>> Maybe we should compute both and verify at least one works?

Well, I'd have to write the entire CM support for that platform first,
which might be a little while ... ;)

>> We also discussed briefly the multiplication results. My tests show the
>> Intel hardware seems to clamp the results.
>> Let's say you have a 255 pixel going through a 0.5 coefficient, you should
>> get 127.5 which would be rounded to 128.
>> Intel hardware gives us 127.
>> Same for a pixel at 255 and a coefficient of 0.25. You would get 63.75 so 64
>> rounded and my results show 63.
>> Again, computing both hypothesis might be a solution.

The docs I have here are silent on what happens. Not much we can do
about it really, so I think we can just leave it as

>> >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).
> This was the original plan (iirc one of the byt luts is like this too).

Cool; it's the only thing I could think of which made any sense.

>> >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
> Yeah I thought same here, we'll support 0.0..1.0 and anything that
> overshoots is platform-defined. I have no idea what to do with the
> overshoot lut table entries, so I guess we'll just leave those until
> someone screams badly ;-)

Program the overshoot register (LUT entry #513) to the same as the
final LUT entry (#512), and overshoot becomes saturation, i.e. desired
semantics. Not really sure what to do with undershoot (clamp to 0 or
mirror axes), but given that's completely hardware dependent and there
doesn't seem much we can do about it, I'd leave it at documenting
'don't do that'.


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list