On Friday 14 July 2017 12:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 06:29:33PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
On Thursday 13 July 2017 04:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
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).
Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope now it is fine. Just reset the settings on
thunderbird
Yes, looks good now.
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.
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.
Ok. When i think over it, that sounds as a good idea to go gradually for
enabling HDCP2.2.
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.
Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall
back to type 0 (if that's available).
I think i misinterpreted. We could enable the HDCP2.2(if supported on panel)
for the Type 0 content. No issue on that
Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content
to HDCP2.2 devices only.
I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed.
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.
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.
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.
Makes sense.
btw I chatted with Shashi today, I think it'd be good if we could have a
chat next week about some of the design patterns for the implementation. I
can give you some pointers for kernel best practices (so you understand
why things are done a bit different).
But I think first priority is to get agreement on the new uapi and make
sure it works for CrOS, we can polish the implementation in following
rounds.
Thanks, Daniel
Sure daniel. Now I have prepared v2 of this patch alone. Please have
review that too.
Based on feedbacks I will spin other patches of this series.
--Ram
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
