Re: [PATCH] drm/komeda: Adds VRR support

From: james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2019 - 08:40:10 EST

Next message: Bartosz Golaszewski: "Re: [PATCH] gpio: tegra: Fix build error without CONFIG_DEBUG_FS"
Previous message: Liran Alon: "Re: [PATCH] KVM: LAPIC: ARBPRI is a reserved register for x2APIC"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [PATCH] drm/komeda: Adds VRR support"
Next in thread: james qian wang (Arm Technology China): "Re: [PATCH] drm/komeda: Adds VRR support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 09:23:20AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:41 PM Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 11:57:00AM +0100, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:01:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uh, what exactly are you doing reinventing uapi properties that we already
> > > > standardized?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, Will use the mode_config->VRR_ENABLED
> >
> > Let's have a chat about what you're planning here. The upstream VRR
> > properties aren't a direct match for our HW (which we discussed
> > before) - so either we need to hide that in the kernel with some frame
> > timing heuristics, or we shouldn't expose our feature via the existing
> > properties.
> >
> > IMO, it's better for Komeda to just allow setting a new CRTC mode to
> > one with a different VFP (but everything else the same) without a full
> > modeset.
> >
> > You could try and implement the upstream VRR properties too - but you
> > can get the functionality added by this patch without changing any
> > UAPI.
> >
> > (Note the only reason we ever added the idea of passing in VFP by
> > itself is because in ADF, modeset was a separate ioctl entirely, so we
> > couldn't do it atomically)
>
> If you want to see an example of how to do changes in the display mode
> (like refresh rate, I have no idea what you mean with VFP, just
> guessing) look at i915. We clear drm_crtc_state->mode_changed if it's
> a mode change we can handle without a full modeset. That gives you
> userspace-controlled variable refresh rate.
>
> The VRR properties are for true VRR, i.e. the hw (with or without help
> of the kernel) decides how long to make each vblank for every frame
> individually, within certain limitats set by the monitor in its EDID
> (or for panels maybe in DT).
>
> > > we use this private property because we're switching to in-tree, before
> > > finish the switch, we still need to maintain our out-of-tree driver which
> > > depend on a older and doesn't have the VRR_ENABLED property. for avoid
> > > diverging the two branch. my old plan is first switch to in-tree, then drop
> > > the out-of-tree driver and then unify the usage.
> > >
> > > > > + if (!prop)
> > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + drm_object_attach_property(&crtc->base, prop, 0);
> > > > > + kcrtc->vrr_enable_property = prop;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > static struct drm_plane *
> > > > > get_crtc_primary(struct komeda_kms_dev *kms, struct komeda_crtc *crtc)
> > > > > {
> > > > > @@ -659,6 +717,10 @@ static int komeda_crtc_add(struct komeda_kms_dev *kms,
> > > > > if (err)
> > > > > return err;
> > > > >
> > > > > + err = komeda_crtc_create_vrr_property(kcrtc);
> > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > + return err;
> > > > > +
> > > > > return err;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_kms.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_kms.h
> > > > > index dc1d436..d0cf838 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_kms.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_kms.h
> > > > > @@ -98,6 +98,12 @@ struct komeda_crtc {
> > > > >
> > > > > /** @slave_planes_property: property for slaves of the planes */
> > > > > struct drm_property *slave_planes_property;
> > > >
> > > > And this seems to not be the first time this happened. Looking at komeda
> > > > with a quick git grep on properties you've actually accumulated quite a
> > > > pile of such driver properties already. Where's the userspace for this?
> > > > Where's the uapi discussions for this stuff? Where's the igt tests for
> > > > this (yes a bunch are after we agreed to have testcases for this).
> > > >
> > > > I know that in the past we've been somewhat sloppy properties, but that
> > > > was a mistake and we've cranked down on this hard. Probably need to fix
> > > > this with a pile of reverts and start over.
> > > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > Sorry again.
> > >
> > > First I'll send some patches to remove these private properties.
> > >
> > > and then discuss for how to impelement them.
> > >
> > > The current komeda privates are:
> > >
> > > crtc:
> > > clock_ratio
> > > slave_planes
> > >
> > > plane:
> > > img_enhancement
> > > layer_split
> > >
> > > Layer_split: it can be deleted and computed in kernel.
> > >
> > > img_enhancement:
> > > it is for image enhancement, can be removed and computed in kernel.
> > > but I'd like to have it, since it's a seperated function (NOT only
> > > for scaling or YUV format), I think only user can real know if need
> > > to enable it.
> > >
> > >
> > > img_enhancement:
> > > it is for image enhancement, can be removed and computed in kernel.
> > > but I'd like to have it, since it's a seperated function (NOT only
> > > for scaling or YUV format), I think only user can real know if need
> > > to enable it.
> > > I think maybe we can add it CORE as an optional drm_plane property.
> >
> > I really don't think we should be exposing this. It's purely there to
> > help improve an image after scaling (effectively, sharpening). It's
> > not a general purpose "image enhancer". Exposing a property which says
> > "image enhancement" isn't useful to any application - what kind of
> > enhancement is it doing?
> >
> > >
> > > clock_ratio:
> > > It's the clock ratio of (main engine lock/output pixel clk) for
> > > komeda HW's downscaling restriction, as below:
> > >
> > > D71 downscaling must satisfy the following equation
> > >
> > > MCLK h_in * v_in
> > > ------- >= ---------------------------------------------
> > > PXLCLK (h_total - (1 + 2 * v_in / v_out)) * v_out
> > >
> > > In only horizontal downscaling situation, the right side should be
> > > multiplied by (h_total - 3) / (h_active - 3), then equation becomes
> > >
> > > MCLK h_in
> > > ------- >= ----------------
> > > PXLCLK (h_active - 3)
> > >
> > > slave_planes:
> > > it's not only for the zpos, but most importantly for notify the user
> > > to group the planes to two resource sets (pipeline-0 resources and pipeline1).
> > > Per our HW design the two pipelines can be dynamic assigned to CRTC
> > > according to the usage.
> > > - like user only enable one CRTC which can use all two pipelines
> > > (two resource resource sets)
> > > - but if enabled two CRTCs, only one resource set available for
> > > each CRTC.
> > >
> > > komeda user need to known the clock_ratio and slave_planes, but how
> > > to expose them: private_property, sysfs or other ways, seems we need
> > > to disscuss. :)
> >
> > @Daniel,
> >
> > These two are a symptom of a fundamental impedance mismatch between
> > how KMS works and actually making optimal use of HW (or: how Android
> > works).
> >
> > HWComposer is expected to have good knowledge of how the underlying HW
> > operates, so that it can effectively schedule a scene. "TEST_ONLY til
> > it works" isn't a viable strategy, and it absolutely shouldn't be
> > needed for a piece of code which has been written _specifically_ to
> > drive komeda.
> >
> > It's acknowledged that HW-specific planners may be needed even in
> > drm-hwcomposer, and those planners are going to need to get told some
> > stuff about the HW. Whether that info should go through atomic
> > properties or not is up for debate (adding properties without
> > following the rules notwithstanding).
> >
> > What's certain is that debugfs is not workable, because it's not
> > available in a production Android device (nor should it be).
> >
> > And of course, there's room for making the information more generic as
> > far as possible, at which point they might be better candidates for
> > DRM UAPI.
>
> If you write a specific userspace, you can just hardcode assumptions
> about what the kernel/hw can/cannot do. That's essentially what all
> the gl drivers do between kernel/userspace: They just know what the
> other side expects.
>
> Wrt making this more generically useful as hints: I've shared a patch
> series with Liviu about what I think should be done here instead:
>
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm/log/?h=for-nashpa

Hi Daniel:

I also sent two more patches based on your removal patches:

1. for Disable slave pipeline support
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/315860/
2. Computing layer_split and image_enhancer internally
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/315861/

Can you merge them together with properties removal patches.

Thanks
james

> Commit message each have a bunch of thoughts. But fundamentally atomic
> is meant to be used together with TEST_ONLY and following hints from
> the driver. So if you never want to use TEST_ONLY (it's only needed
> for transitions, not for every frame) in your stack, then life is
> going to be very painful indeed.
> -Daniel
>
> > Thanks,
> > -Brian
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > James
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /** @vrr_property: property for variable refresh rate */
> > > > > + struct drm_property *vrr_property;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /** @vrr_enable_property: property for enable/disable the vrr */
> > > > > + struct drm_property *vrr_enable_property;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > @@ -126,6 +132,12 @@ struct komeda_crtc_state {
> > > > >
> > > > > /** @max_slave_zorder: the maximum of slave zorder */
> > > > > u32 max_slave_zorder;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /** @vfp: the value of vertical front porch */
> > > > > + u32 vfp;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /** @en_vrr: enable status of variable refresh rate */
> > > > > + u8 en_vrr : 1;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > /** struct komeda_kms_dev - for gather KMS related things */
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_pipeline.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_pipeline.h
> > > > > index 00e8083..66d7664 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_pipeline.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/arm/display/komeda/komeda_pipeline.h
> > > > > @@ -336,7 +336,9 @@ struct komeda_improc_state {
> > > > > /* display timing controller */
> > > > > struct komeda_timing_ctrlr {
> > > > > struct komeda_component base;
> > > > > - u8 supports_dual_link : 1;
> > > > > + u8 supports_dual_link : 1,
> > > > > + supports_vrr : 1;
> > > > > + struct malidp_range vfp_range;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > struct komeda_timing_ctrlr_state {
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.9.1
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Next message: Bartosz Golaszewski: "Re: [PATCH] gpio: tegra: Fix build error without CONFIG_DEBUG_FS"
Previous message: Liran Alon: "Re: [PATCH] KVM: LAPIC: ARBPRI is a reserved register for x2APIC"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [PATCH] drm/komeda: Adds VRR support"
Next in thread: james qian wang (Arm Technology China): "Re: [PATCH] drm/komeda: Adds VRR support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]