[Intel-gfx] [v3 0/7] Add Multi Segment Gamma Support
ville.syrjala at intel.com
Wed Apr 17 11:57:31 UTC 2019
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:28:19AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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
> > patches.
> > 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.
I guess no one understood my blob_enum idea? It's an enum where each
possible value is a blob. The only thing that changes is the current
value (which can only point to one of the enumerated blobs).
> - 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,
> see here:
> 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.
It'll be ridiculously wasteful. IIRC we need a LUT with 32768 entries,
and then ~98% of those gets thrown away and never programmed to the
> - 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.
I think it can be used pretty easily. Userspace just has to decide
whether it wants a straight up LUT or whether an interpolated curve
is enough, and how much precision it needs. For x11 the logic would
be simple enough: 1. look for straight up LUT with num_entries >= 1<<bpc,
if that isn't found fall back to an interpolated curve with >= 1<<bpc
precision, and finally just fall back to whatever gives the best
results I suppose.
> 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.
> Cheers, Daniel
> > 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(-)
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
Intel Finland Oy
Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki
Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4
Domiciled in Helsinki
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
More information about the Intel-gfx