On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:12:04PM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > Regards > > Shashank > > > On 11/14/2016 9:50 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:37:18PM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > >> Regards > >> > >> Shashank > >> > >> > >> On 11/14/2016 9:19 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:14:34PM +0530, Sharma, Shashank wrote: > >>>> Regards > >>>> Shashank > >>>>> the revert: > >>>>> > >>>>> HDMI2 connected 1920x1080+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 700mm x 390mm > >>>>> - 1920x1080 60.00*+ > >>>>> - 1920x1080i 60.00 50.00 > >>>>> + 1920x1080 60.00*+ 50.00 59.94 30.00 25.00 24.00 29.97 23.98 > >>>>> + 1920x1080i 60.00 50.00 59.94 > >>>>> 1600x1200 60.00 > >>>>> 1680x1050 59.88 > >>>>> 1280x1024 75.02 60.02 > >>>>> @@ -13,30 +13,29 @@ > >>>>> 1360x768 60.02 > >>>>> 1280x800 59.91 > >>>>> 1152x864 75.00 > >>>>> - 1280x720 60.00 50.00 > >>>>> + 1280x720 60.00 50.00 59.94 > >>>>> 1024x768 75.03 70.07 60.00 > >>>>> 832x624 74.55 > >>>>> 800x600 72.19 75.00 60.32 > >>>>> - 640x480 75.00 72.81 66.67 59.94 > >>>>> + 720x576 50.00 > >>>>> + 720x480 60.00 59.94 > >>>>> + 640x480 75.00 72.81 66.67 60.00 59.94 > >>>>> 720x400 70.08 > >>>> None of these aspect ratios are new modes / new aspect ratios from HDMI > >>>> 2.0/CEA-861-F > >>>> These are the existing modes, and should be independent of reverted > >>>> patches. > >>> They're affected because your patches changed them by adding the aspect > >>> ratio flags to them. > >> Yes, But they are independent of reverted patch, which adds aspect ratio > >> for HDMI 2.0 ratios (64:27 and 256:135) > > The second patch had to be reverted so that the first patch would revert > > cleanly. > > > >>>>> This was with sna, which does this: > >>>>> #define KNOWN_MODE_FLAGS ((1<<14)-1) > >>>>> if (mode->status == MODE_OK && kmode->flags & ~KNOWN_MODE_FLAGS) > >>>>> mode->status = MODE_BAD; /* unknown flags => unhandled */ > >>>>> so all the modes with an aspect ratio just vanished. > >>>>> > >>>>> -modesetting and -ati on the other hand just copy over the unknown > >>>>> bits into the xrandr mode structure, which sounds dubious at best: > >>>>> mode->Flags = kmode->flags; //& FLAG_BITS; > >>>>> I've not checked what damage it can actually cause. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It looks like a few modes disappeared from the kernel's mode list > >>>>> as well, presumably because some cea modes in the list originated from > >>>>> DTDs and whanot so they don't have an aspect ratio and that causes > >>>>> add_alternate_cea_modes() to ignore them. So not populating an aspect > >>>>> ratio for cea modes originating from a source other than > >>>>> edid_cea_modes[] looks like another bug to me as well. > >>>> I am writing a patch series to cap the aspect ratio implementation under > >>>> a drm_cap_hdmi2_aspect_ratios > >>>> This is how its going to work (inspired from the 2D/stereo series from > >>>> damien L) > >>>> > >>>> - Add a new capability hdmi2_ar > >>> It should be just a generic "expose aspect ratio flags to userspace?" > >> Makes sense, in this way we can even revert the aspect_ratio property > >> for HDMI connector, as discussed during > >> the code review sessions of this patch series. In this way, when kernel > >> will expose the aspect ratios, it will either > >> do the aspect ratios as per EDID, or wont. > >>>> - by default parsing the new hdmi 2.0 aspect ratio will be disabled > >>>> under check of this cap > >>>> - during bootup time, while initializing the display, a userspace can > >>>> get_cap on the hdmi2_aspect_ratio > >>>> - If it wants HDMI 2.0 aspect ratio support, it will set the cap, and > >>>> kernel will expose these aspect ratios > >>>>> Another bug I think might be the ordering of the modes with aspect ratio > >>>>> specified. IIRC the spec says that the preferred aspect ratio should be > >>>>> listed first in the EDID, but I don't think we preserve that ordering > >>>>> in the final mode list. I guess we could fix that by somehow noting > >>>>> which aspect ratio is preferred and sort based on that, or we try to > >>>>> preserve the order from the EDID until we're ready to sort, and then do > >>>>> the sorting with a stable algorithm. > >>>> AFAIK The mode order and priority is decided and arranged in userspace, > >>>> based on various factors like > >>>> - preferred mode. > >>>> - previously applied mode in previous sessions (like for android tvs) > >>>> - Bigger h/w vs better refresh rate ? > >>>> - Xserver applies its own algorithms to decide which mode should be > >>>> shown first. > >>> Xorg does sort on its own. But since it doesn't know anything about > >>> aspect ratios and whatnot I wouldn't rely on that for anything. I > >>> also wouldn't expect eg. wayland compositors to do their own sorting. > >>> And yeah, looks like weston at least doesn't do any sorting whatsoever. > >>> > >>>> I dont think kernel needs to bother about it. > >>> So I'm going to say that we in fact do need to bother. > >>> > >> IMHO, making policies for UI is not a part of kernel design, a UI > >> manager (Hardware composed, X or Wayland) should take care of it, as > >> they have access to much information (Like previously applied mode, user > >> preference etc). When it comes to sorting of modes, the only general rule > >> across drivers like FB, V4L2, I have seen is the first mode in the list > >> should be preferred mode, which we are still keeping. And after that our > >> probed_modes were > >> anyways not sorted now, so it doesn't matter further. > > Having userspace be responsible for sorting the aspect ratios would > > perhaps require that userspace parses the EDID, which is pretty crazy. > Why ? > userspace has to just set cap for aspect ratio, and kernel can read > EDID, parse the CEA block, populate the aspect ratios flags > and add the modes (Just what this patch was doing, except the cap part) > Once userspace has the getResources/getConnector call filled, it can > access all the modes (with and without aspect) and do the sorting > in any way it wants. > > I guess it could try to deduce something from the physical aspect ratio > > of the display, but I'm not sure that's quite what we want either. > > > > Also we already sort the modes in the kernel anyway, so it's not like > > we'd be doing something new by also considering the aspect ratios. > > I would at the very least want to avoid a totally random order between > > modes that differ only by the aspect ratio. > Path: get_connector -> probe_single_connector_mode -> drm_add_edid_modes > Again, IMHO, we don't sort the modes in kernel, we populate modes in a > particular order, which is: > (From drm_edid.c::drm_add_edid_modes) > ############################################################## > /* > * EDID spec says modes should be preferred in this order: > * - preferred detailed mode > * - other detailed modes from base block > * - detailed modes from extension blocks > * - CVT 3-byte code modes > * - standard timing codes > * - established timing codes > * - modes inferred from GTF or CVT range information > * > * We get this pretty much right. > * > * XXX order for additional mode types in extension blocks? > */ > num_modes += add_detailed_modes(connector, edid, quirks); > num_modes += add_cvt_modes(connector, edid); > num_modes += add_standard_modes(connector, edid); > num_modes += add_established_modes(connector, edid); > num_modes += add_cea_modes(connector, edid); > num_modes += add_alternate_cea_modes(connector, edid); > num_modes += add_displayid_detailed_modes(connector, edid); > ############################################################### > > Here the modes are added in the connector, in the same order they are > arranged into their respective blocks in EDID. > But the order to read the block is a preferred order (no sorting). > > Now, in this patch series, we are adding aspect ratio information in > edid_cea_modes db, which is going to affect only > add_cea/alternate_cea_modes() call, and the modes accordingly. > Please let me know if I misunderstood something here. We explicitly sort the modes after this. > > Regards > Shashank > >> If X server doesn't know what to do with aspect ratio flags, it can > >> chose not to set the cap, and if HWC knows, it can chose to set. This is > >> the same situation as 2D stereo modes > >> which are existing already. > >> > >> Regards > >> Shashank -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
