On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:39:02PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Monday, 19 February 2018 23:58:40 EET Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Friday, 16 February 2018 20:20:41 EET Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 06:39:29PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > >> Some drivers duplicate the logic to create a property to store a > > >>> per-plane alpha. > > >>> > > >>> This is especially useful if we ever want to support extra protocols > > >>> for Wayland like: > > >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2017-August/034741 > > >>> .html > > >>> > > >>> Let's create a helper in order to move that to the core. > > >>> > > >>> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> > > >>> Documentation/gpu/kms-properties.csv | 2 +- > > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 4 ++++- > > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 4 ++++- > > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > >>> include/drm/drm_blend.h | 1 +- > > >>> include/drm/drm_plane.h | 6 +++++- > > >>> 6 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/kms-properties.csv > > >>> b/Documentation/gpu/kms-properties.csv index 927b65e14219..25ad3503d663 > > >>> 100644 > > >>> --- a/Documentation/gpu/kms-properties.csv > > >>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/kms-properties.csv > > >>> @@ -99,5 +99,5 @@ radeon,DVI-I,“coherent”,RANGE,"Min=0, > > >>> Max=1",Connector,TBD> > > >>> > > >>> ,,"""underscan vborder""",RANGE,"Min=0, Max=128",Connector,TBD > > >>> ,Audio,“audio”,ENUM,"{ ""off"", ""on"", ""auto"" }",Connector,TBD > > >>> ,FMT Dithering,“dither”,ENUM,"{ ""off"", ""on"" }",Connector,TBD > > >>> > > >>> -rcar-du,Generic,"""alpha""",RANGE,"Min=0, Max=255",Plane,TBD > > >>> +,,"""alpha""",RANGE,"Min=0, Max=Driver dependant",Plane,Opacity of the > > >>> plane from transparent (0) to fully opaque (MAX). If this property is > > >>> set to a value different than max, and that the pixel will define an > > >>> alpha component, the property will have precendance and the pixel value > > >>> will be ignored. > > > > Please don't document new properties in that csv file, it's an > > unreadable mess. Instead follow how we document standardized > > properties nowadays in full-blown sections. For plane blending we > > have: > > > > https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/drm-kms.html#plane-composition-prop > > erties > > > > >> Those semantics don't seem particularly good to me. I think we would want > > >> the per-pixel alpha and global alpha both to be effecive at the same > > >> time. You can always decide to ignore the per-pixel alpha by using a > > >> pixel format without alpha. > > > > > > That makes sense to me. However, it also brings a new question: how should > > > a driver that supports either global alpha or pixel alpha but not both > > > signal that to userspace, and how should it reacts when userspace selects > > > a format with an alpha channel and set a global alpha value other than > > > fully opaque ? To make things more complex, note that some drivers > > > support combining global alpha and pixel alpha only for a subset of the > > > formats with an alpha channel (for instance for ARGB 1555 formats, but > > > not for ARGB 8888 formats). > > > > atomic_check can reject unsupported configs. Userspace needs to fall > > back somehow (either switch to xrgb or make alpha fully opaque or just > > give up on that plane). We have a lot of such corner-cases we don't > > tell userspace about explicitly at all. > > I'm OK with failing the commit in case in invalid configuration is requested. > However, using a check-only commit to find out whether combining global alpha > and pixel alpha is supported doesn't seem a good idea to me. First of all > userspace would need to try that for all formats, making it cumbersome. Then, > an atomic commit is a black box, we don't report the failure cause to > userspace. It makes it hard to use it to test support for a feature as it > could fail for an unrelated reason. Finally, we'd open the door to various > kind of heuristics implemented differently in different userspace stacks, and > that would increase the risk of breaking userspace. I'd rather have an > explicitly documented way to perform such checks. I am _not_ against more explicit checks. I only object against them in the name of "future proofing" without a solid pile of different driver and userspace implementations as demonstration vehicles that the hints are actually useful and needed by userspace. DRM history is full of fake-generic uapi that turned out to be useful for exactly the 1 driver/userspace combo it was originally implemented for, and frankly for just 1 combo hardcoding works better. Also, these fake-generic interfaces tend to result in epic bikeshed fests that go nowhere, I think it's better to avoid them in the first uapi round and get the basic properties in first. Nothing prevents us from adding hints and more useful constraints information later on. > > >> Also, where's the userspace that wants this feature? > > >> > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_plane.h b/include/drm/drm_plane.h > > >>> index 8185e3468a23..5a6f29524f12 100644 > > >>> --- a/include/drm/drm_plane.h > > >>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_plane.h > > >>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx; > > >>> * plane (in 16.16) > > >>> * @src_w: width of visible portion of plane (in 16.16) > > >>> * @src_h: height of visible portion of plane (in 16.16) > > >>> + * @alpha: opacity of the plane > > >>> * @rotation: rotation of the plane > > >>> * @zpos: priority of the given plane on crtc (optional) > > >>> * Note that multiple active planes on the same crtc can have an > > >>> identical > > >>> @@ -105,6 +106,9 @@ struct drm_plane_state { > > >>> uint32_t src_x, src_y; > > >>> uint32_t src_h, src_w; > > >>> > > >>> + /* Plane opacity */ > > >>> + u8 alpha; > > >> > > >> We may want to make that u16. The general we expect 16bpc for most color > > >> related things, but since this is a range prop I suppose we should just > > >> expose the actual hardware range. But making it u16 might avoid some head > > >> scratching for the first person to have hardware with higher precision. > > >> Either that or we should make the prop creation fail if the driver asks > > >> for more bits than we have in the state. > > > > > > I'm tempted to go one step further and always make the alpha property > > > 16-bits wide for new users (we can't do so for existing users as it could > > > break userspace), and let drivers convert that internally to the range > > > they need. There could however be drawbacks I don't foresee. > > > > I think scaling the range to match the hw is the most sensible (yes > > I'm flip-flopping around here). > > So you mean keeping the proposed implementation, with a driver-specific > maximum value ? > > > And once someone needs more than u8, we can extend the internal > > representation easily. The external representation in the property is an > > u64, that /should/ be enough for the next few years :-) > > The external representation is split in two parts. The value is stored in a > 64-bits field, and that is safe. The second part of the representation is the > minimum (hardcoded to 0) and maximum (currently variable) values reported by > the property. What we need to decide now is whether to hardcode the maximum > value to 0xffff for all new users of the alpha property, or to always expose > the hardware range. After a bit of vacation I'm leaning towards hardcoding 0xffff for now, because if we start out with generic userspace that's only tested on hw with a limit of 0xff, then defacto (but maybe not in the docs, but docs lose against reality) we'll hardcode the uapi to 0xff, not the variable hw limit. And that would mean as soon as hw with a higher limit shows up we need to add a alpha-but-high-res-for-real-now property. -Daniel > > > >> Oh, and you should plug this into the state dumper as well. > > >> > > >>> + > > >>> > > >>> /* Plane rotation */ > > >>> unsigned int rotation; > > >>> @@ -481,6 +485,7 @@ enum drm_plane_type { > > >>> * @funcs: helper functions > > >>> * @properties: property tracking for this plane > > >>> * @type: type of plane (overlay, primary, cursor) > > >>> + * @alpha_property: alpha property for this plane > > >>> * @zpos_property: zpos property for this plane > > >>> * @rotation_property: rotation property for this plane > > >>> * @helper_private: mid-layer private data > > >>> @@ -556,6 +561,7 @@ struct drm_plane { > > >>> */ > > >>> > > >>> struct drm_plane_state *state; > > >>> + struct drm_property *alpha_property; > > >>> struct drm_property *zpos_property; > > >>> struct drm_property *rotation_property; > > >>> }; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart > -- 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
