[PATCH wayland-protocols v2] unstable/drm-lease: DRM lease protocol support

Pekka Paalanen ppaalanen at gmail.com
Thu May 31 12:38:35 UTC 2018

On Wed, 30 May 2018 12:38:22 +0000
Marius-cristian Vlad <marius-cristian.vlad at nxp.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 17:10 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:51:51 +0200
> > Marius Vlad <marius-cristian.vlad at nxp.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Simple protocol extension to manage DRM lease. Based on the work by
> > > Keith
> > > Packard in [1], respectively [2].
> > > 
> > > [1] https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/commit/?id=c4171535389d72
> > > e9135c9615cecd07b346fd6d7e
> > > [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.
> > > git/commit/?h=v4.15-rc9&id=62884cd386b876638720ef88374b31a84ca7ee5f
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Marius Vlad <marius-cristian.vlad at nxp.com>
> > > 
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - added manager: advertise lease capability and manage the lease
> > > (Daniel Stone)
> > > - add request(s) for adding connector/crtc/plane to behave more
> > > like dmabuf (Daniel Stone)
> > > ---
> > >  Makefile.am                                  |   1 +
> > >  unstable/drm-lease/README                    |   4 +
> > >  unstable/drm-lease/drm-lease-unstable-v1.xml | 150
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 unstable/drm-lease/README
> > >  create mode 100644 unstable/drm-lease/drm-lease-unstable-v1.xml  
> > 
> > Hi Marius,
> > 
> > it's great to have someone working on this!
> > 
> > I finally got a chance to look at it. Comments are inline as usual.
> > Most
> > of my questions call for an answer in the spec text.  
> Thanks for taking the time to go over this. I have some minor follow-up
> questions bellow.

Hi Marius,

I have written some pondering as replies to your questions below. I hope
they make sense.

I had a chat with Keith Packard in IRC about some details of how DRM
leasing actually works. These details affect the implementations more,
but there might be something we need to take into account with the
protocol as well.

These are my notes from the chat:

- When there is a change with DRM leases, a normal DRM hotplug event
  will be emitted.

- Particularly Lessor needs to listen for hotplug events and re-query
  the state of all DRM leases. This is how Lessor finds out a lease has
  been terminated by a Lessee. This needs to happen also on gaining DRM

- VT-switching: When the original DRM master (Lessor) drops the master
  status, all DRM leases it has given out will be temporarily disabled.
  When Lessor regains DRM master, the disabled leases are automatically

- Lessee can tell the difference between a permanent revoke and a
  temporary disable of a lease by the error it gets from the KMS API
  (drmModeSetCrtc, drmModePageFlip, drmModeAtomicCommit): EACCESS for
  temporary disable, and ENOENT for a revoked lease that is not coming

- If Lessee gets EACCESS, it should stand by and wait for hotplug
  events to try again with the hope that the lease comes back.

Some random thoughts from me:

- Need to make sure the client has enough information to listen for
  hotplug events in a multi-card system.

- If the Wayland client disconnects, revoke all its leases.
  Implementation-wise this is easy as the wl_resource gets

- We probably do not want a Wayland event for compositor dropping DRM
  master, because it would be racy in the client against KMS calls and
  the client will notice on its own anyway.

- There could be a Wayland event for compositor gaining DRM master, to
  tell the client to try KMS again now, but it seems redundant: the DRM
  hotplug event provides the same, and needs to be listened to anyway
  if the client wants to react to hotplug on its leased connector.

> > > diff --git a/unstable/drm-lease/drm-lease-unstable-v1.xml
> > > b/unstable/drm-lease/drm-lease-unstable-v1.xml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..907efb0
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/unstable/drm-lease/drm-lease-unstable-v1.xml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
> > > +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > +<protocol name="drm_lease_unstable_v1">


> > 
> > To me this sounds like a client needs to first open a DRM card node,
> > iterate through all the resources (is that even possible if it is not
> > a
> > DRM master?), look at the information and guess which ones the
> > compositor might be willing to lease out, and then through trial and
> > error maybe find something that will actually be accepted.  
> Indeed, that's how the client demo/example does it now. 
> > 
> > I do not like this plan.
> > 
> > It assumes that the client can open a DRM card node itself - this is
> > often not the case. Even display servers do not open the DRM card
> > node
> > themselves, they ask logind, so it is actually likely that the client
> > does not have the file system access to the card node.  
> Well... I assumed that the client can do this on its own.

DRM leasing protocol could be used to allow direct display access from
application sandboxes.

There is one more problem I forgot about: multiple card nodes.
How would a client know which card nodes the compositor is using and
might be able to give out leases for?

It could probably try and probe to see what it can get from DRM card
nodes directly, but that seems awkward.

A compositor could also be using multiple card nodes. If we have DRM
resource advertisements as part of this extension, it needs to take
into account that some resources could be from a different card and
therefore cannot be paired with some other resources.

> > Another problem is that the client has no idea which resources the
> > compositor is willing to lease out. That set of resources could even
> > change at runtime when the compositor output configuration changes,
> > if
> > the compositor has a policy that everything it is not using itself
> > can
> > be leased (I would propose Weston to have this policy).  
> Right. 
> > 
> > A compositor could even be willing to lease out resources it is
> > using,
> > e.g. plane resources it can fall back from, or a CRTC for an output
> > that will get temporarily disabled if a Lessee wants it. Especially
> > in
> > the latter case, the compositor might ask the user if he is willing
> > to
> > give the output to an app and explaining how he can get his output
> > back
> > in case the app malfunctions (e.g. compositor hotkey to revoke all
> > leases).
> >   
> Yes.
> > Both problems could be solved by extending the kms_lease_manager
> > interface to advertise the leasable KMS resources, including enough
> > information to allow the client to make a good guess on e.g. which
> > connectors it might be interested in.
> > 
> > Another fun problem is how to pick a CRTC, since CRTCs cannot be
> > assumed to be equal. It's quite possible that the client needs to
> > lease
> > every available CRTC one at a time, attempt modeset, and see if it
> > can
> > drive the connector with the mode it wants. If it doesn't work, try
> > the
> > next available CRTC. Since we probably cannot avoid trial and error
> > completely, it is important to reduce the number of possible
> > combinations as much as possible.
> > 
> > Another approach would be to not let the client pick a CRTC on its
> > own.
> > Let the client pick a connector from a list, and have the compositor
> > find a suitable CRTC to go with it.  
> Alright, if I got this right: the compositor will advertise which
> connectors can be leased. 
> Will present that to the client, client will pick one of those. On the
> reply the compositor will determine a valid CRTC to drive that
> connector then will create the lease and send back to the client the
> lease fd. 

Yes. If a client wants to lease multiple connectors, I assume it can
just ask each separately. This does assume that the client is not
aiming for shared-CRTC clone mode as it would get more CRTCs than it
needs in that case.

I'm not sure it would be worth the complexity to be able to lease out
some connectors without CRTCs, the chances of being able to use
shared-CRTC clone mode are slim and use cases probably hard to find. If
a use case pops up, we can look at it then.

As for a compositor determining a valid CRTC, it could go as far as
doing a TEST_ONLY or even a real atomic commit of the CRTC/connector
with the preferred video mode to ensure it's supposed to work.

> How will the compositor choose which connectors can be leased? We
> assume that all connectors can be leased? 

This would be left as compositor policy.

I would guess that most desktop compositors would lease out only
connectors that are marked as "non-desktop" or explicitly configured to
be leasable and not used by the compositor.

For Weston it would be nice to take things further than that, maybe
even allow leasing connectors that are in use, so that we can
experiment with CRTC/connector hand-over with leases. If a non-VR
application, e.g. a 3D game, would want to drive a display directly,
this is how it would happen. Another problem is how that game would get
input, but that's irrelevant here.

I'm totally ok with the initial weston implementation only leasing out
unused resources.

> For a client a unsigned int doesn't really tell anything .... is this
> the panel on my right, the display on my left or the upper panel -- or
> the VR is just hooked up? Do we advertise this to the client as well in
> the form of output names or something equivalent? I guess more general
> question show we present the potential leasable resource(s) in a human
> form? Would that make sense?
> The approach with the client choosing which crtc/connector/plane
> somehow assumes that client has a-priory knowledge of which resource
> wants... albeit will all the drawbacks you enumerated before. 

Right, the advertisement needs to provide enough information.

How do applications that want to drive a display directly actually pick
the displays?

I assume the primary use case here are VR compositors, who are only
looking for HMDs or any "non-desktop" outputs. We need to provide
enough information to let those be identified. I suppose it would be at
- EDID: make
- EDID: model
- EDID: serial number
- physical connector type
- connection status

The protocol needs to be designed to allow new fields to be added, IOW
to be able to add new events carrying bits of information not sent
before, in a backward-compatible manner. The bits of information that
are not available due to the connector being disconnected etc. could be
simply left unsent.

Almost all of the above depend on the currently connected monitor,
which means that they can change at runtime. Therefore hotplug and
unplug needs to be accounted for, in case an application could take a
long while (e.g. interactive UI) to choose the connectors it wants.

The secondary use case are all other programs. They could be interested
in any kind of monitors. They would probably be interested in name and
description from the xdg_output interface. See:

But because the compositor would be primarily leasing out connectors it
is not using, there is no respective xdg_output, so we should probably
duplicate the name and description.

Saying anything explicitly about monitor layout is likely useless: if
the compositor is not using the monitor, it's not part of its layout.
If a compositor is using a monitor, it could add a word or two about
the layout in the description.

Btw. a compositor should probably send out connector protocol objects,
not events with connector IDs. That would fit the Wayland object model
better. There might not be a need to send the actual connector ID at

If we go with leasing one connector at a time and the compositor
automatically picking the CRTC for it, a connector protocol object
could have a request "lease", creating a lease object which then
delivers the failure or success events.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20180531/c356aedb/attachment.sig>

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list