On 2021-04-26 2:07 p.m., Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:38:50PM -0400, Harry Wentland wrote:
From: Bhawanpreet Lakha <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@xxxxxxx>
Add the following color encodings
- RGB versions for BT601, BT709, BT2020
- DCI-P3: Used for digital movies
Signed-off-by: Bhawanpreet Lakha <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c | 4 ++++
include/drm/drm_color_mgmt.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c
index bb14f488c8f6..a183ebae2941 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c
@@ -469,6 +469,10 @@ static const char * const color_encoding_name[] = {
[DRM_COLOR_YCBCR_BT601] = "ITU-R BT.601 YCbCr",
[DRM_COLOR_YCBCR_BT709] = "ITU-R BT.709 YCbCr",
[DRM_COLOR_YCBCR_BT2020] = "ITU-R BT.2020 YCbCr",
+ [DRM_COLOR_RGB_BT601] = "ITU-R BT.601 RGB",
+ [DRM_COLOR_RGB_BT709] = "ITU-R BT.709 RGB",
+ [DRM_COLOR_RGB_BT2020] = "ITU-R BT.2020 RGB",
+ [DRM_COLOR_P3] = "DCI-P3",
These are a totally different thing than the YCbCr stuff.
The YCbCr stuff just specifies the YCbCr<->RGB converison matrix,
whereas these are I guess supposed to specify the primaries/whitepoint?
But without specifying what we're converting *to* these mean absolutely
nothing. Ie. I don't think they belong in this property.
If this is the intention I don't see it documented.
I might have overlooked something but do we have a way to explicitly
specify today what *to* format the YCbCr color encodings convert into?
Would that be a combination of the output color encoding specified via
colorspace_property and the color space encoded in the primaries and
whitepoint of the hdr_output_metadata?
Fundamentally I don't see how the use of this property differs, whether
you translate from YCbCr or from RGB. In either case you're converting
from the defined input color space and pixel format to an output color
space and pixel format.
The previous proposals around this topic have suggested a new
property to specify a conversion matrix either explicitly, or
via a separate enum (which would specify both the src and dst
colorspaces). I've always argued the enum approach is needed
anyway since not all hardware has a programmable matrix for
this. But a fully programmable matrix could be nice for tone
mapping purposes/etc, so we may want to make sure both are
possible.
As for the transfer func, the proposals so far have mostly just
been to expose a programmable degamma/gamma LUTs for each plane.
But considering how poor the current gamma uapi is we've thrown
around some ideas how to allow the kernel to properly expose the
hw capabilities. This is one of those ideas:
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2019-April/212886.html>> I think that basic idea could be also be extended to allow fixed
curves in case the hw doesn't have a fully programmable LUT. But
dunno if that's relevant for your hw.
The problem with exposing gamma, whether per-plane or per-crtc, is that
it is hard to define an API that works for all the HW out there. The
capabilities for different HW differ a lot, not just between vendors but
also between generations of a vendor's HW.
Another reason I'm proposing to define the color space (and gamma) of a
plane is to make this explicit. Up until the color space and gamma of a
plane or framebuffer are not well defined, which leads to drivers
assuming the color space and gamma of a buffer (for blending and other
purposes) and might lead to sub-optimal outcomes.
Harry
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
