On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:30:16 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:59:19PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > The point of these documentation patches is to establish the convention > > that: > > > > - drm_mode_get_plane::format_type_ptr is the list of pixel formats that > > can work via the no-modifiers uAPI, but says nothing about the > > explicit modifiers uAPI. > > > > - IN_FORMATS is a list of format-modifier pairs that can work via the > > explicit modifiers API, but says nothing about the no-modifiers uAPI. > > > > Is that a reasonable expectation? > > I'm not sure. I thought they're the same list underneath in the kernel, at > least for drivers that do support modifiers. The current wording I think > suggests more meaning than is actually there. They may be the same list in the kernel today, but do you want to force all future drivers and future formats-modifiers to have that too? Or did the boat sail already? The existing uAPI considers these two to be independent lists, no documentation saying otherwise, is there? Should a kernel driver not have a way to say "this format won't work via the no-modifiers uAPI"? The practical consequence in userspace is how should userspace collect the lists of supported format-modifier pairs, when the kernel has two independent format lists, one carries modifiers explicitly and the other does not. The one that carries explicit modifiers cannot denote "no modifier" AFAIU. So the "obvious" interpretation in userspace is that: - the format list that does not carry any modifier information should be used with the no-modifiers uAPI, and - the format list that does carry explicit modifiers should be used with the explicit modifiers uAPI. If you were to say, that if IN_FORMATS exists, use it and ignore the old no-modifiers format list, then the conclusion in userspace when IN_FORMATS exists is that you cannot use the no-modifiers uAPI, because all formats that are listed as supported carry an explicit modifier. I understand that the format or format-modifier lists are not authoritative. Formats outside of the lists *could* work. But why would anyone bother trying something that is not suggested to work? Or, is the intention such, that all formats in IN_FORMATS list imply some support through the no-modifiers uAPI too, iff buffer allocation does not give you an explicit modifier? Or, should there be an i-g-t test to ensure that both the old and IN_FORMATS lists have the exact same pixel formats always, carving that fact into stone and resolving all this ambiguity? > > Is it also so that passing MOD_INVALID to the explicit modifier uAPI > > (ADDFB2) is invalid argument? Do we have that documented? > > We'd need to check that, currently it's an out-of-band flag in the struct. > Atm DRM_FORMAT_MOD_INVALID is entirely an internal sentinel value to > denote end-of-array entries. > > In practice it wont pass because we validate the modifiers against the > advertised list. Right, so while at it, would be good to document that one cannot substitute no-modifiers uAPI with explicit modifier uAPI using MOD_INVALID. This should be documented, because other userspace APIs have tendency to gravitate towards having just one explicit modifiers function allowing MOD_INVALID, meaning "no modifier". Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgp1EIQSp9nuj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
