[Intel-gfx] [v3 0/7] Add Multi Segment Gamma Support
daniel at ffwll.ch
Wed Apr 17 07:28:19 UTC 2019
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 03:50:56PM +0530, Uma Shankar wrote:
> This series adds support for programmable gamma modes and
> exposes a property interface for the same. Also added,
> support for multi segment gamma mode introduced in ICL+
> It creates GAMMA_MODE property interface. This is an enum
> property with values as blob_id's and exposes
> the various gamma modes supported and the lut ranges Getting the
> blob id in userspace, user can get the mode supported and
> also the range of gamma mode supported with number of lut
> coefficients. It can then set one of the modes using this
> enum property.
> Lut values will be sent through already available GAMMA_LUT
> blob property.
> It also introduces a CLIENT CAP for advanced GAMMA_MODE.
> This is for user to set the and use advance gamma mode and older
> userspace can continue using the legacy paths.
> v2: Used Ville's design and approach to define the interfaces.
> Addressed Matt Roper's review feedback and re-ordered the
> v3: Converged to 1 property interface and introduced a Client cap
> as suggested by Ville. Fixed review comments received.
> Uma Shankar (5):
> drm/i915/icl: Add register definitions for Multi Segmented gamma
> drm/i915/icl: Add support for multi segmented gamma mode
> drm/i915: Attach gamma mode property
> drm: Add Client Cap for advance gamma mode
> drm/i915: Enable advance gamma mode
> Ville Syrjälä (2):
> drm: Add gamma mode property
> drm/i915: Define color lut range structure
Bunch of higher level comments after some internal discussions:
- we need the userspace for this, can't design new uapi without involving
the compositor folks for hdr.
- single property doesn't work: Once userspace has set it, the old blob
property with the list of all options is gone. We need one read-only
property for the list of options, plus a 2nd property that userspace can
set. This is a general rule for more complex properties, where the usual
property metadata isn't enough to describe the possible options.
- no caps for properties. Yes that gives us a theoretical problem, no in
practice it doesn't matter, since people don't even care enough to make
e.g. fbdev resetting work today for everything. Long form discussion,
Nothing happened in this area ever since I typed this up, so I guess
it's really not a real-world concern.
- Simplest path forward would be if we accept different LUT sizes than the
one advertised (we already do that for legacy gamma, and this is
officially what we had in mind too), and the kernel automatically picks
the best lut configuration. Will be somewhat awkard for the
multi-segment lut, but would decouple the uapi discussion a bit.
- Frankly the uapi proposed looks like fake generic - it tries to model
all possibilities in a generic way, when really userspace needs to have
special code for special pipelines. To me this feels like the pixel
modifier discussion all over, where we had multi-year discussions on
trying to describe everything in generic terms or just have fairly
opaque enumeration of special cases. Both approaches have been tried.
For this I'm leaning towards the opaque color pipeline description for
the more fancy stuff.
Either way, settling on the right uapi will take some time, and will
need a pile of people to be involved.
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c | 8 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c | 77 ++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_ioctl.c | 5 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 17 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color.c | 735 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 3 +
> include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 1 +
> include/drm/drm_color_mgmt.h | 8 +
> include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 17 +
> include/drm/drm_file.h | 8 +
> include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 6 +
> include/uapi/drm/drm.h | 2 +
> include/uapi/drm/drm_mode.h | 38 ++
> 13 files changed, 918 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
More information about the Intel-gfx