<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 13 July 2017 04:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ramalingam.c@intel.com"><ramalingam.c@intel.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ramalingam.c@intel.com"><ramalingam.c@intel.com></a> wrote: On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org"><seanpaul@chromium.org></a> wrote: Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other stuff? enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with kobj-uevent for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 configuration. And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this is too contentious. I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. -Daniel I understand the approach. But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM with a design which can easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS property a bit with ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is necessary? There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as follows: </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Aside: You're quoting is broken for inline quoting. Either fix the quoting or top-quote (there's no difference between your text and mine, mine should be indented with > or | or similar).</pre> </blockquote> Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope now it is fine. Just reset the settings on thunderbird <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For Example lets say - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 panel here). - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for Userspace to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the content type classification. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yes, that is the case, but also the point of gradual enabling. Atm (with the current CrOS usersapce) userspace can ask for "pls give me content protection, I don't care what level/type". That itself is already useful, and a good step forward. Allowing to ask for a specific type is something on top.</pre> </blockquote> Ok. When i think over it, that sounds as a good idea to go gradually for enabling HDCP2.2. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content that could be rendered to HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly classified as Type 1 by KMD. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall back to type 0 (if that's available).</pre> </blockquote> I think i misinterpreted. We could enable the HDCP2.2(if supported on panel) for the Type 0 content. No issue on that <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content to HDCP2.2 devices only. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed. </pre> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the HDCP2.2 compliance. Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer to go ahead with HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yes, it's only hdcp1.4, and getting to full hdcp2.2 will take more work. You can do all of that in one go, but my experience with upstreaming new uabi is that usually that's not the most effective way to go about things. But in the end, that's your choice.</pre> </blockquote> Agreed. We will go gradually about enabling HDCP2.2. 1. Enable HDCP2.2 for HDCP_ENABLE with Content type as 0. 2. Enable HDCP2.2 for Type 1 content with Enum value HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 3. Making HDCP2.2 support as HDCP2.2 spec compliant. But I think i will just add another enum value HDCP_UNSUPPORTED to mark the no HDCP supported on the setup. I hope that is fine. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKMK7uGJRUNZutZe-wpWpRs2TGgLKZY1zmuFR=2tJosZzUeMww@mail.gmail.com"> <pre wrap=""> -Daniel </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>