[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v13 12/17] drm/i915: Upscale scaler max scale for NV12

[Maarten Lankhorst]

Op 14-03-18 om 10:52 schreef Maarten Lankhorst:
> Op 09-03-18 om 09:48 schreef Vidya Srinivas:
>> From: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru at intel.com>
>>
>> This patch updates scaler max limit support for NV12
>>
>> v2: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v3: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v4: Missed the Tested-by/Reviewed-by in the previous series
>> Adding the same to commit message in this version.
>>
>> v5: Addressed review comments from Ville and rebased
>> - calculation of max_scale to be made
>> less convoluted by splitting it up a bit
>> - Indentation errors to be fixed in the series
>>
>> v6: Rebased (me)
>> Fixed review comments from Paauwe, Bob J
>> Previous version, where a split of calculation
>> was done, was wrong. Fixed that issue here.
>>
>> v7: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v8: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v9: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v10: Rebased (me)
>>
>> v11: Addressed review comments from Shashank Sharma
>> Alignment issues fixed.
>> When call to skl_update_scaler is made, 0 was being
>> sent instead of pixel_format.
>> When crtc update scaler is called, we dont have the
>> fb to derive the pixel format. Added the function
>> parameter bool plane_scaler_check to account for this.
>>
>> v12: Fixed failure in IGT debugfs_test.
>> fb is NULL in skl_update_scaler_plane
>> Due to this, accessing fb->format caused failure.
>> Patch checks fb before using.
>>
>> v13: In the previous version there was a flaw.
>> In skl_update_scaler during plane_scaler_check
>> if the format was non-NV12, it would set need_scaling
>> to false. This could reset the previously set need_scaling
>> from a previous condition check. Patch fixes this.
>> Patch also adds minimum src height for YUV 420 formats
>> to 16 (as defined in BSpec) and adds for checking this
>> range.
>>
>> Tested-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nabendu Maiti <nabendu.bikash.maiti at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Srinivas <vidya.srinivas at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h     |  4 +-
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  |  3 +-
>>  3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 34f7225..7fd8354 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -3466,6 +3466,8 @@ static u32 skl_plane_ctl_format(uint32_t pixel_format)
>>  		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 | PLANE_CTL_YUV422_UYVY;
>>  	case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY:
>>  		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 | PLANE_CTL_YUV422_VYUY;
>> +	case DRM_FORMAT_NV12:
>> +		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_NV12;
>>  	default:
>>  		MISSING_CASE(pixel_format);
>>  	}
>> @@ -4705,7 +4707,9 @@ static void cpt_verify_modeset(struct drm_device *dev, int pipe)
>>  static int
>>  skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>  		  unsigned int scaler_user, int *scaler_id,
>> -		  int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h)
>> +		  int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h,
>> +		  bool plane_scaler_check,
>> +		  uint32_t pixel_format)
>>  {
>>  	struct intel_crtc_scaler_state *scaler_state =
>>  		&crtc_state->scaler_state;
>> @@ -4723,6 +4727,10 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>  	 */
>>  	need_scaling = src_w != dst_w || src_h != dst_h;
>>  
>> +	if (plane_scaler_check)
>> +		if (pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12)
>> +			need_scaling = true;
> Seems redundant to add plane_scaler_check, if you can just check for scaler_user != SKL_CRTC_INDEX.
> But since pixel_format is always 0 for crtc index, you can just check pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12 directly..
>
>>  	if (crtc_state->ycbcr420 && scaler_user == SKL_CRTC_INDEX)
>>  		need_scaling = true;
>>  
>> @@ -4763,17 +4771,32 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	/* range checks */
>> -	if (src_w < SKL_MIN_SRC_W || src_h < SKL_MIN_SRC_H ||
>> -		dst_w < SKL_MIN_DST_W || dst_h < SKL_MIN_DST_H ||
>> -
>> -		src_w > SKL_MAX_SRC_W || src_h > SKL_MAX_SRC_H ||
>> -		dst_w > SKL_MAX_DST_W || dst_h > SKL_MAX_DST_H) {
>> -		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("scaler_user index %u.%u: src %ux%u dst %ux%u "
>> -			"size is out of scaler range\n",
>> -			intel_crtc->pipe, scaler_user, src_w, src_h, dst_w, dst_h);
>> -		return -EINVAL;
>> -	}
>> -
>> +	if (plane_scaler_check && pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
>> +		if (src_h > SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H)
>> +			goto check_scaler_range;
>> +		else
>> +			goto failed_range;
>> +	} else {
>> +		if (src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H)
>> +			goto check_scaler_range;
>> +		else
>> +			goto failed_range;
>> +	}
> Since nv12 always needs scaling, could we refuse to create NV12 fb's with height < 16 in intel_framebuffer_init?
Hm we should probably reject this in that place anyway, but since src_h >= SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H
implies src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H we don't need special handling, and can just do if (pixel_format == NV12 && src_h >= 16) return -EINVAL;
and keep the existing checks.

~Maarten