On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:37:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:10:29PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:08:42 +0100
> > > Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amlogic uses a proprietary lossless image compression protocol and format
> > > > for their hardware video codec accelerators, either video decoders or
> > > > video input encoders.
> > > >
> > > > It considerably reduces memory bandwidth while writing and reading
> > > > frames in memory.
> > > >
> > > > The underlying storage is considered to be 3 components, 8bit or 10-bit
> > > > per component, YCbCr 420, single plane :
> > > > - DRM_FORMAT_YUV420_8BIT
> > > > - DRM_FORMAT_YUV420_10BIT
> > > >
> > > > This modifier will be notably added to DMA-BUF frames imported from the V4L2
> > > > Amlogic VDEC decoder.
> > > >
> > > > At least two options are supported :
> > > > - Scatter mode: the buffer is filled with a IOMMU scatter table referring
> > > > to the encoder current memory layout. This mode if more efficient in terms
> > > > of memory allocation but frames are not dumpable and only valid during until
> > > > the buffer is freed and back in control of the encoder
> > > > - Memory saving: when the pixel bpp is 8b, the size of the superblock can
> > > > be reduced, thus saving memory.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > > > index 8bc0b31597d8..8a6e87bacadb 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > > > @@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > #define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_VENDOR_BROADCOM 0x07
> > > > #define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_VENDOR_ARM 0x08
> > > > #define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_VENDOR_ALLWINNER 0x09
> > > > +#define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_VENDOR_AMLOGIC 0x0a
> > > >
> > > > /* add more to the end as needed */
> > > >
> > > > @@ -804,6 +805,61 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > */
> > > > #define DRM_FORMAT_MOD_ALLWINNER_TILED fourcc_mod_code(ALLWINNER, 1)
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Amlogic Video Framebuffer Compression modifiers
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Amlogic uses a proprietary lossless image compression protocol and format
> > > > + * for their hardware video codec accelerators, either video decoders or
> > > > + * video input encoders.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * It considerably reduces memory bandwidth while writing and reading
> > > > + * frames in memory.
> > > > + * Implementation details may be platform and SoC specific, and shared
> > > > + * between the producer and the decoder on the same platform.
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > after a lengthy IRC discussion on #dri-devel, this "may be platform and
> > > SoC specific" is a problem.
> > >
> > > It can be an issue in two ways:
> > >
> > > - If something in the data acts like a sub-modifier, then advertising
> > > support for one modifier does not really tell if the data layout is
> > > supported or not.
> > >
> > > - If you need to know the platform and/or SoC to be able to interpret
> > > the data, it means the modifier is ill-defined and cannot be used in
> > > inter-machine communication (e.g. Pipewire).
> > >
> >
> > Playing devil's advocate, the comment sounds similar to
> > I915_FORMAT_MOD_{X,Y}_TILED:
> >
> > * This format is highly platforms specific and not useful for cross-driver
> > * sharing. It exists since on a given platform it does uniquely identify the
> > * layout in a simple way for i915-specific userspace.
>
> Yeah which we regret now. We need to now roll out a new set of
> modifiers for at least some of the differences in these on the
> modern-ish chips (the old crap is pretty much lost cause anyway).
>
> This was kinda a nasty hack to smooth things over since we have epic
> amounts of userspace, but it's really not a great idea (and no one
> else really has epic amounts of existing userspace that uses tiling
> flags everywhere, this is all new code).
> -Daniel
>
> > Isn't the statement that this for sharing between producer and decoder
> > _on the same platform_ a similar clause with the same effect?
> >
> > What advantage is there to exposing the gory details? For Arm AFBC
> > it's necessary because IP on the SoC can be (likely to be) from
> > different vendors with different capabilities.
> >
> > If this is only for talking between Amlogic IP on the same SoC, and
> > those devices support all the same "flavours", I don't see what is
> > gained by making userspace care about internals.
>
> The trouble is if you mix&match IP cores, and one of them supports
> flavours A, B, C and the other C, D, E. But all you have is a single
> magic modifier for "whatever the flavour is that soc prefers". So
> someone gets to stuff this in DT.
>
Yes, if incompatible support levels are possible, then they must be
described, no disagreement there. That's why AFBC is so explicit.
> Also eventually, maybe, perhaps ARM does grow up into the
> client/server space with add-on pcie graphics, and at least for client
> you very often end up with integrated + add-in pcie gpu. At that point
> you really can't have magic per-soc modifiers anymore.
>
I don't entirely agree. This is only relevant for modifiers which
might be used between the PCIe GPU and the SoC (in your example).
Per-SoC modifiers still work, they just lose meaning at the SoC
boundary.
Looking at the description of DRM_FORMAT_MOD_AMLOGIC_FBC_SCATTER in
particular, it sounds like that would never be shareable even if it
had a more "complete" modifier.
> If people get confused I'm happy to add a "WARNING: This was a dumb
> idea for backwards compat with legacy code, no one with new stuff ever
> repeat it" to the i915 modifers.
> -Daniel
I think marking it as non-preferred (and why) would be a good idea, so
as not to use it as an example.
Cheers,
-Brian
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Brian
> >
> > > Neil mentioned the data contains a "header" that further specifies
> > > things, but there is no specification about the header itself.
> > > Therefore I don't think we can even know if the header contains
> > > something that acts like a sub-modifier or not.
> > >
> > > All this sounds like the modifier definitions here are not enough to
> > > fully interpret the data. At the very least I would expect a reference
> > > to a document explaining the "header", or even better, a kernel ReST
> > > doc.
> > >
> > > I wonder if this is at all suitable as a DRM format modifier as is. I
> > > have been assuming that a modifier together with all the usual FB
> > > parameters should be enough to interpret the stored data, but in this
> > > case I have doubt it actually is.
> > >
> > > I have no problem with proprietary data layouts as long as they are
> > > fully specified.
> > >
> > > I do feel like I would not be able to write a software decoder for this
> > > set of modifiers given the details below.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > pq
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
