On 2/6/23 04:47, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 06:09:45AM +0000, Joshua Ashton wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/3/23 19:34, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:25:38PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:56:55PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/3/23 11:00, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:24:52AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/23 10:19, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:39:42AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/23 07:59, Sebastian Wick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:40 AM Ville Syrjälä
>>>>>>>>>>> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 02:07:44AM +0000, Joshua Ashton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Userspace has no way of controlling or knowing the pixel encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently, so there is no way for it to ever get the right values here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That applies to a lot of the other values as well (they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly RGB or YCC). The idea was that this property sets the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infoframe/MSA/SDP value exactly, and other properties should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> added to for use userspace to control the pixel encoding/colorspace
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion(if desired, or userspace just makes sure to
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly feed in correct kind of data).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for getting userspace control over pixel encoding but even
>>>>>>>>>>> then the kernel always knows which pixel encoding is selected and
>>>>>>>>>>> which InfoFrame has to be sent. Is there a reason why userspace would
>>>>>>>>>>> want to control the variant explicitly to the wrong value?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've asked this before but haven't seen an answer: Is there an existing
>>>>>>>>>> upstream userspace project that makes use of this property (other than
>>>>>>>>>> what Joshua is working on in gamescope right now)? That would help us
>>>>>>>>>> understand the intent better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The intent was to control the infoframe colorimetry bits,
>>>>>>>>> nothing more. No idea what real userspace there was, if any.
>>
>> Controlling the infoframe alone isn't useful at all unless you can
>> guarantee the wire encoding, which we cannot do.
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think giving userspace explicit control over the exact infoframe
>>>>>>>>>> values is the right thing to do.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only userspace knows what kind of data it's stuffing into
>>>>>>>>> the pixels (and/or how it configures the csc units/etc.) to
>>>>>>>>> generate them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but userspace doesn't control or know whether we drive
>>>>>>>> RGB or YCbCr on the wire. In fact, in some cases our driver
>>>>>>>> needs to fallback to YCbCr420 for bandwidth reasons. There
>>>>>>>> is currently no way for userspace to know that and I don't
>>>>>>>> think it makes sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People want that control as well for whatever reason. We've
>>>>>>> been asked to allow YCbCr 4:4:4 output many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The automagic 4:2:0 fallback I think is rather fundementally
>>>>>>> incompatible with fancy color management. How would we even
>>>>>>> know whether to use eg. BT.2020 vs. BT.709 matrix? In i915
>>>>>>> that stuff is just always BT.709 limited range, no questions
>>>>>>> asked.
>>
>> That's what the Colorspace property *should* be determining here.
>> That's what we have it set up to do in SteamOS/my tree right now.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We use what we're telling the display, i.e., the value in the
>>>>>> colorspace property. That way we know whether to use a BT.2020
>>>>>> or BT.709 matrix.
>>>>>
>>>>> And given how these things have gone in the past I think
>>>>> that is likey to bite someone at in the future. Also not
>>>>> what this property was meant to do nor does on any other
>>>>> driver AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see how it's fundamentally incompatible with fancy
>>>>>> color management stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we start forbidding drivers from falling back to YCbCr
>>>>>> (whether 4:4:4 or 4:2:0) we will break existing behavior on
>>>>>> amdgpu and will see bug reports.
>>>>>
>>>>> The compositors could deal with that if/when they start doing
>>>>> the full color management stuff. The current stuff only really
>>>>> works when the kernel is allowed to do whatever it wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think if userspace wants real color management it's
>>>>>>> going to have to set up the whole pipeline. And for that
>>>>>>> we need at least one new property to control the RGB->YCbCr
>>>>>>> conversion (or to explicitly avoid it).
>>
>> I mentioned this in my commit description, we absolutely should offer
>> fine control here eventually.
>>
>> I don't think we need to solve that problem here though.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And given that the proposed patch just swept all the
>>>>>>> non-BT.2020 issues under the rug makes me think no
>>>>>>> one has actually come up with any kind of consistent
>>>>>>> plan for anything else really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone actually use the non-BT.2020 colorspace stuff?
>>>>>
>>>>> No idea if anyone is using any of it. It's a bit hard to do
>>>>> right now outside the full passthrough case since we have no
>>>>> properties to control how the hardware will convert stuff.
>>
>> No, every userspace knows that encoding of the output buffer before
>> going to the wire format is RGB.
>>
>> It's the only way you can have planes alpha-blend, or mix and match RGB
>> and NV12, etc.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, sounds like what you're basically proposing is
>>>>> getting rid of this property and starting from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I guess one option would be to add that property to
>>>> control the output encoding, but include a few extra
>>>> "automagic" values to it which would retain the kernel's
>>>> freedom to select whether to do the RGB->YCbCr conversion
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> enum output_encoding {
>>>> auto rgb=default/nodata,ycbcr=bt601
>>>> auto rgb=default/nodata,ycbcr=bt709
>>>> auto rgb=bt2020,ycbcr=bt2020
>>>> passthrough,
>>>> rgb->ycbcr bt601,
>>>> rgb->ycbcr bt709,
>>>> rgb->ycbcr bt2020,
>>>> }
>>>
>>> In fact there should perhaps be a lot more of the explicit
>>> options to get all subsamlings and quantizations ranges
>>> coverted. That might actually be really nice for an igt
>>> to get more full test coverage.
>>>
>> The choice of encoding of the pixel on the wire should be unrelated to
>> the overall output colorspace from the userspace side -- but how the
>> display engine converts the output to that wire format *is* dependent on
>> the colorspace.
>> eg. picking a rec.709 ctc vs a rec.2020 ctc matrix.
>>
>> I see you are proposing a "passthrough" but that wouldn't work at all as
>> you still need to at know if you are RGB or YCbCr for the infoframe and
>> to perform chroma subsampling in the display engine.
>
> The passthrough (and other knobs after it) were meant for
> explicit control, which means they wouldn't affect infoframes.
>
> But probably we should have seprate properties for explicit
> control of each knob vs. some kind of easier to use property.
> And I suppose we can still leave the explicit control stuff
> for later (apart from the one property we already have).
>
>>
>> I perused the initial patches that added this property, and it seems
>> there were no IGT tests or userspace implementation, so I am not
>> entirely sure why it was committed in the first place.
>
> I presume at least the kodi HDR stuff uses ths. There may
> have also been some chromeos stuff going on. Can't recall
> anymore.
I can't find mention of "colorspace" in kodi. Its SetHDR() [1]
function only sets HDR_OUTPUT_METADATA.
[1] https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/blob/122916890a2b82ad8defaf2fd1934076387df84d/xbmc/windowing/gbm/WinSystemGbm.cpp#L316
>
> As for IGT, there's nothing we can really test since we
> have no way to get the inforframes/etc. back from the sink.
> Hence nothing beyond the normal kms_property sanity checks
> really makes sense.
>
True, though a generic infoframe readback through debugfs might
be a nice-to-have for testing things that are expected to modify
the infoframe.
>>
>> Nobody can safely use Colorspace because of this problem right now.
>>
>> If nobody is using this property, perhaps we could just get a fresh
>> start, and either re-purpose it with new enum values, or obsolete it and
>> make a new property.
>> If we do this, let's start with the absolute bare minimum, such as:
>> "Default/Rec.709 (sRGB), BT.2020"
>> and then grow as we need, making sure we have the full circle from
>> userspace->output complete and working for each new value we add.
>
I agree. This leaves room for API that can be extensible but let's
not define things unless they're actually used in a full-stack
implementation.
> Yeah, I think a fresh property is what we want.
>
Agreed. And if this new property is also updating the infoframe it needs
to be clear it's mutually exclusive with the existing property.
Harry
>>
>> Please don't take this as me saying we shouldn't add all these other
>> options like opRGB, etc, I just want us to progress to a solid base for
>> expanding further here, which we really don't have right now.
>>
>> - Joshie 🐸✨
>
