[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 1/2] drm/msm/dpu: add dsc helper functions

Sun Feb 26 00:47:10 UTC 2023

Hi Dmitry

On 2/25/2023 7:23 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 25/02/2023 02:36, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/2023 3:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 00:26, Abhinav Kumar 
>>> <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2023 1:36 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> 24 февраля 2023 г. 23:23:03 GMT+02:00, Abhinav Kumar 
>>>>> <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> пишет:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2023 1:13 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2023 21:40, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Add DSC helper functions based on DSC configuration profiles to 
>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>> DSC related runtime parameters through both table look up and 
>>>>>>>> runtime
>>>>>>>> calculation to support DSC on DPU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are 6 different DSC configuration profiles are supported 
>>>>>>>> currently.
>>>>>>>> DSC configuration profiles are differiented by 5 keys, DSC 
>>>>>>>> version (V1.1),
>>>>>>>> chroma (444/422/420), colorspace (RGB/YUV), bpc(8/10),
>>>>>>>> bpp (6/7/7.5/8/9/10/12/15) and SCR (0/1).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only DSC version V1.1 added and V1.2 will be added later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These helpers should go to drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dsc_helper.c
>>>>>>> Also please check that they can be used for i915 or for amdgpu 
>>>>>>> (ideally for both of them).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it cannot. So each DSC encoder parameter is calculated based 
>>>>>> on the HW core which is being used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They all get packed to the same DSC structure which is the struct 
>>>>>> drm_dsc_config but the way the parameters are computed is specific 
>>>>>> to the HW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This DPU file helper still uses the drm_dsc_helper's 
>>>>>> drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters() like all other vendors do but the 
>>>>>> parameters themselves are very HW specific and belong to each 
>>>>>> vendor's dir.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not unique to MSM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets take a few other examples:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AMD: 
>>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/dml/dsc/rc_calc_fpu.c#L165 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i915: 
>>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c#L379 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked several values here. Intel driver defines more bpc/bpp 
>>>>> combinations, but the ones which are defined in intel_vdsc and in 
>>>>> this patch seem to match. If there are major differences there, 
>>>>> please point me to the exact case.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember that AMD driver might have different values.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some values in the rc_params table do match. But the rc_buf_thresh[] 
>>>> doesnt.
>>>
>>> Because later they do:
>>>
>>> vdsc_cfg->rc_buf_thresh[i] = rc_buf_thresh[i] >> 6;
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/blob/msm-next/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vdsc.c#L40 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vs
>>>>
>>>> +static u16 dpu_dsc_rc_buf_thresh[DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES - 1] = {
>>>> +               0x0e, 0x1c, 0x2a, 0x38, 0x46, 0x54,
>>>> +               0x62, 0x69, 0x70, 0x77, 0x79, 0x7b, 0x7d, 0x7e
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to have 896, 1792, etc. here, as those values come from the
>>> standard. As it's done in the Intel driver.
>>>
>>
>> Got it, thanks
>>
>>>> I dont know the AMD calculation very well to say that moving this to 
>>>> the
>>>> helper is going to help.
>>>
>>> Those calculations correspond (more or less) at the first glance to
>>> what intel does for their newer generations. I think that's not our
>>> problem for now.
>>>
>>
>> Well, we have to figure out if each value matches and if each of them 
>> come from the spec for us and i915 and from which section. So it is 
>> unfortunately our problem.
> 
> Otherwise it will have to be handled by Marijn, me or anybody else 
> wanting to hack up the DSC code. Or by anybody adding DSC support to the 
> next platform and having to figure out the difference between i915, msm 
> and their platform.
> 

Yes, I wonder why the same doubt didn't arise when the other vendors 
added their support both from other maintainers and others.

Which makes me think that like I wrote in my previous response, these 
are "recommended" values in the spec but its not mandatory.

Moving this to the drm_dsc_helper is generalizing the tables and not 
giving room for the vendors to customize even if they want to (which the 
spec does allow).

So if this has any merit and if you or Marijn would like to take it up, 
go for it. We would do the same thing as either of you would have to in 
terms of figuring out the difference between msm and the i915 code.

This is not a generic API we are trying to put in a helper, these are 
hard-coded tables so there is a difference between looking at these Vs 
looking at some common code which can move to the core.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, i think its too risky to change other drivers to use whatever 
>>>> math
>>>> we put in the drm_dsc_helper to compute thr RC params because their 
>>>> code
>>>> might be computing and using this tables differently.
>>>>
>>>> Its too much ownership for MSM developers to move this to 
>>>> drm_dsc_helper
>>>> and own that as it might cause breakage of basic DSC even if some 
>>>> values
>>>> are repeated.
>>>
>>> It's time to stop thinking about ownership and start thinking about
>>> shared code. We already have two instances of DSC tables. I don't
>>> think having a third instance, which is a subset of an existing
>>> dataset, would be beneficial to anybody.
>>> AMD has complicated code which supports half-bit bpp and calculates
>>> some of the parameters. But sharing data with the i915 driver is
>>> straightforward.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I would like to get an ack from i915 folks if this is going
>> to be useful to them if we move this to helper because we have to look 
>> at every table. Not just one.
> 
> Added i915 maintainers to the CC list for them to be able to answer.
> 

Thanks, lets wait to hear from them about where finally these tables 
should go but thats can be taken up as a separate effort too.

>>
>> Also, this is just 1.1, we will add more tables for 1.2. So we will 
>> have to end up changing both 1.1 and 1.2 tables as they are different 
>> for QC.
> 
> I haven't heard back from Kuogee about the possible causes of using 
> rc/qp values from 1.2 even for 1.1 panels. Maybe you can comment on 
> that? In other words, can we always stick to the values from 1.2 
> standard? What will be the drawback?
> 
> Otherwise, we'd have to have two different sets of values, like you do 
> in your vendor driver.
> 

I have responded to this in the other email.

All this being said, even if the rc tables move the drm_dsc_helper 
either now or later on, we will still need MSM specific calculations for 
many of the other encoder parameters (which are again either hard-coded 
or calculated). Please refer to the sde_dsc_populate_dsc_config() 
downstream. And yes, you will not find those in the DP spec directly.

So we will still need a dsc helper for MSM calculations to be common for 
DSI / DP irrespective of where the tables go.

So, lets finalize that first.

>> So if you look at the DSC spec from where these tables have come it says
>>
>> "Common Recommended Rate Control-Related Parameter Values"
>>
>> Its Recommended but its NOT mandated by the spec to follow every value 
>> to the dot. I have confirmed this point with more folks.
>>
>> So, if someone from i915 this is useful and safe to move their code to 
>> the tables, we can try it.
>>
>>>> I would prefer to keep it in the msm code but in a top level directory
>>>> so that we dont have to make DSI dependent on DPU.
>>>
>>> I haven't changed my opinion. Please move relevant i915's code to
>>> helpers, verify data against standards and reuse it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> All vendors compute the values differently and eventually call 
>>>>>> drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters()
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't check the tables against the standard (or against the 
>>>>>>> current source code), will do that later.
>>>
> 