Am 06.07.21 um 09:09 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:49:42 +0200
Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 01.07.21 um 15:24 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:50:13 +0200
Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 01.07.21 um 10:07 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:20:18 +0200
Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 30.06.21 um 10:41 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:39:18 +0200
Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 29.06.21 um 13:17 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 08:12:54 +0000
Simon Ser <contact@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 22nd, 2021 at 09:15, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yes, I think this makes sense, even if it is a property that one can't
tell for sure what it does before hand.
Using a pair of properties, preference and active, to ask for something
and then check what actually worked is good for reducing the
combinatorial explosion caused by needing to "atomic TEST_ONLY commit"
test different KMS configurations. Userspace has a better chance of
finding a configuration that is possible.
OTOH, this has the problem than in UI one cannot tell the user in
advance which options are truly possible. Given that KMS properties are
rarely completely independent, and in this case known to depend on
several other KMS properties, I think it is good enough to know after
the fact.
If a driver does not use what userspace prefers, there is no way to
understand why, or what else to change to make it happen. That problem
exists anyway, because TEST_ONLY commits do not give useful feedback
but only a yes/no.
By submitting incremental atomic reqs with TEST_ONLY (i.e. only changing one
property at a time), user-space can discover which property makes the atomic
commit fail.
That works if the properties are independent of each other. Color
range, color format, bpc and more may all be interconnected,
allowing only certain combinations to work.
If all these properties have "auto" setting too, then it would be
possible to probe each property individually, but that still does not
tell which combinations are valid.
If you probe towards a certain configuration by setting the properties
one by one, then depending on the order you pick the properties, you
may come to a different conclusion on which property breaks the
configuration.
My mind crossed another point that must be considered: When plugin in
a Monitor a list of possible Resolutions+Framerate combinations is
created for xrandr and other userspace (I guess by atomic checks? but
I don't know).
Hi,
I would not think so, but I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong.
My belief is that the driver collects a list of modes from EDID, some
standard modes, and maybe some other hardcoded modes, and then
validates each entry against all the known limitations like vertical
and horizontal frequency limits, discarding modes that do not fit.
Not all limitations are known during that phase, which is why KMS
property "link-status" exists. When userspace actually programs a mode
(not a TEST_ONLY commit), the link training may fail. The kernel prunes
the mode from the list and sets the link status property to signal
failure, and sends a hotplug uevent. Userspace needs to re-check the
mode list and try again.
That is a generic escape hatch for when TEST_ONLY commit succeeds, but
in reality the hardware cannot do it, you just cannot know until you
actually try for real. It causes end user visible flicker if it happens
on an already running connector, but since it usually happens when
turning a connector on to begin with, there is no flicker to be seen,
just a small delay in finding a mode that works.
During this drm
properties are already considered, which is no problem atm because as
far as i can tell there is currently no drm property that would make
a certain Resolutions+Framerate combination unreachable that would be
possible with everything on default.
I would not expect KMS properties to be considered at all. It would
reject modes that are actually possible if the some KMS properties were
changed. So at least going forward, current KMS property values cannot
factor in.
At least the debugfs variable "force_yuv420_output" did change the
available modes here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13/source/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c#L5165
before my patch
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=68eb3ae3c63708f823aeeb63bb15197c727bd9bf
Hi,
debugfs is not proper UAPI, so we can just ignore it. Display servers
cannot be expected to poke in debugfs. Debugfs is not even supposed to
exist in production systems, but I'm sure people use it for hacking
stuff. But that's all it is for: developer testing and hacking.
e.g. Ubuntu has it active by default, but only read (and writable) by root.
Hi,
that's normal, yes. Root can do damage anyway, and it's useful for
debugging. KMS clients OTOH often do not run as root.
Forcing a color format via a DRM property in this function would
reintroduce the problem.
The property would need to be defined differently because its presence
could otherwise break existing userspace. Well, I suppose it could
break existing userspace no matter what, so we would need the generic
"reset to sane defaults" mechanism first IMO.
DRM has client caps for exposing video modes that old userspace might
not expect, to avoid breaking old userspace. Care needs to be taken
with all new UAPI, because if a kernel upgrade makes something wrong,
it's the kernel's fault no matter what userspace is doing, in principle.
Can you give me a link describing how I define this caps?
I don't have any, but you can find all the existing ones by grepping
for DRM_CLIENT_CAP_.
I'm not saying that we need it, but mentioning them as a possible
workaround if userspace breakage seems imminent or is proven.
Debugfs has no problem breaking userspace AFAIU, since it's not proper
UAPI.
And I think i915 driver works similar in this regard.
However for example forcing YCbCr420 encoding would limit the
available resolutions (my screen for example only supports YCbCr420
on 4k@60 and @50Hz and on no other resolution or frequency (native is
2560x1440@144Hz).
So would a "force color format" that does not get resetted on
repluging/reenabling a monitor break the output, for example, of an
not updated xrandr, unaware of this new property?
Yes, not because the mode list would be missing the mode, but because
actually setting the mode would fail.
Well, like described above, I think the mode would actually be missing,
which is also an unexpected behavior from a user perspective.
I think that is not how the property should work.
If KMS properties would affect the list of modes, then userspace would
need to set the properties for real (TEST_ONLY cannot change anything)
and re-fetch the mode lists (maybe there is a hotplug event, maybe
not). That workflow just doesn't work.
The properties are set before the list is created in the first place.
Because, in my example, the properties get set before the monitor is
plugged in and the list can only be created as soon as the monitor is
plugged in.
That's just an accident, it's not what I mean.
What I mean is, we cannot have the KMS properties affect the list of
modes, because then userspace that want to use specific values on those
properties would have to program those properties first, and then get
the list of modes. KMS UAPI does not work that way AFAIK.
If the initial mode list is created on hotplug like you say, then the
initial list could already be missing some modes that would be valid if
some KMS properties had different values.
Depends if the mode list is created by TEST_ONLY:
Hi,
I'm pretty sure it's not created by any kind of atomic test probing,
exactly because some properties might affect the result. Also because
of legacy: the mode lists predate atomic by far. It just doesn't make
sense to prune the mode list based on current arbitrary property values.
I implemented a buggy prototype for "force color format" and it doesn't
make modes disappear as I feared.
It does successfully prevent setting a color format that is unsupported
by the currently connected monitor.
However, if no monitor is connected and the property is set or the
monitor is switched to another one that doesn't support currently the
selected mode, the screen might stay black.
I don't think this should be the intended behavior, but the only 2
sollutions i come up with violate the principle of not having a
decentralized reset:
1. On monitor connect always reset the property to auto
- alternatively: set on disconnect and don't allow to change
without a connected monitor
2. On monitor connect, try the current setting and reset to auto if it
fails (basically a one time "preferred color format" until the monitor
capabilities are known).
The function drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes() looks relevant
to me. It has a big comment that seems to point towards more things to
look at.
Thanks,
pq
- The force properties should return false on TEST_ONLY
- The force properties should not prevent the mode from showing up in the list
If the list is created by TEST_ONLY both things can't be fulfilled at the same time obviously.
I hope some can give more insights or has an idea how the properties could work best.
A very interesting question is when should link-status failure not drop
the current mode from the mode list, if other KMS properties affect the
bandwidth etc. requirements of the mode. That mechanism is engineered
for old userspace that doesn't actually handle link-status but does
handle hotplug, so the hotplug triggers re-fetching the mode list and
userspace maybe trying again with a better luck since the offending
mode is gone. How to keep that working when introducing KMS properties
forcing the cable format, I don't know.
As long as the other affecting KMS properties are all "auto", the
driver will probably exhaust all possibilities to make the mode work
before signalling link-status failure and pruning the mode.
Theoretically, as I have no idea what drivers actually do.
Isn't that exactly how the "preferred color format" property works in
my patchset now?
There was an argument that "preferred" with no guarantees is not
useful enough. So I'm considering the force property instead.
The problem is, "auto" is not the only possible value.
When the value is not "auto", should link failure drop the mode or not?
Userspace might change the value back to "auto" next time. If you
dropped the mode, it would be gone. If you didn't drop the mode,
userspace might be stuck picking the same non-working mode again and
again if it doesn't know about the force mode property.
You could argue that changing the value back to "auto" needs to reset
the mode list, but that only gets us back to the "need to set
properties before getting mode list".
Maybe there needs to be an assumption that if "force color format" is
not "auto", then link failure does not drop modes and userspace knows
to handle this. Messy.
I'm afraid I just don't know to give any clear answer. It's also
possible that, as I'm not a kernel dev, I have some false assumptions
here.
Thanks,
pq
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
