On 6/29/2023 12:29 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:40:21 -0700
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/28/2023 12:34 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:10:19 -0700
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/27/2023 2:59 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 28/06/2023 00:27, Jessica Zhang wrote:
On 6/27/2023 12:58 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:02:50 -0700
Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/7/2022 11:37 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 03:59:49PM -0700, Jessica Zhang wrote:
Introduce and add support for COLOR_FILL and COLOR_FILL_FORMAT
properties. When the color fill value is set, and the framebuffer
is set
to NULL, memory fetch will be disabled.
Thinking a bit more universally I wonder if there should be
some kind of enum property:
enum plane_pixel_source {
FB,
COLOR,
LIVE_FOO,
LIVE_BAR,
...
}
Reviving this thread as this was the initial comment suggesting to
implement pixel_source as an enum.
I think the issue with having pixel_source as an enum is how to decide
what counts as a NULL commit.
Currently, setting the FB to NULL will disable the plane. So I'm
guessing we will extend that logic to "if there's no pixel_source set
for the plane, then it will be a NULL commit and disable the plane".
In that case, the question then becomes when to set the pixel_source to
NONE. Because if we do that when setting a NULL FB (or NULL solid_fill
blob), it then forces userspace to set one property before the other.
Right, that won't work.
There is no ordering between each property being set inside a single
atomic commit. They can all be applied to kernel-internal state
theoretically simultaneously, or any arbitrary random order, and the
end result must always be the same. Hence, setting one property cannot
change the state of another mutable property. I believe that doing
otherwise would make userspace fragile and hard to get right.
I guess there might be an exception to that rule when the same property
is set multiple times in a single atomic commit; the last setting in
the array prevails. That's universal and not a special-case between two
specific properties.
Because of that, I'm thinking of having pixel_source be represented
by a
bitmask instead. That way, we will simply unset the corresponding
pixel_source bit when passing in a NULL FB/solid_fill blob. Then, in
order to detect whether a commit is NULL or has a valid pixel
source, we
can just check if pixel_source == 0.
Sounds fine to me at first hand, but isn't there the enum property that
says if the kernel must look at solid_fill blob *or* FB_ID?
If enum prop says "use solid_fill prop", the why would changes to FB_ID
do anything? Is it for backwards-compatibility with KMS clients that do
not know about the enum prop?
It seems like that kind of backwards-compatiblity will cause problems
in trying to reason about the atomic state, as explained above, leading
to very delicate and fragile conditions where things work intuitively.
Hence, I'm not sure backwards-compatibility is wanted. This won't be
the first or the last KMS property where an unexpected value left over
will make old atomic KMS clients silently malfunction up to showing no
recognisable picture at all. *If* that problem needs solving, there
have been ideas floating around about resetting everything to nice
values so that userspace can ignore what it does not understand. So far
there has been no real interest in solving that problem in the kernel
though.
Legacy non-atomic UAPI wrappers can do whatever they want, and program
any (new) properties they want in order to implement the legacy
expectations, so that does not seem to be a problem.
Hi Pekka and Dmitry,
After reading through both of your comments, I think I have a better
understanding of the pixel_source implementation now.
So to summarize, we want to expose another property called
"pixel_source" to userspace that will default to FB (as to not break
legacy userspace).
If userspace wants to use solid fill planes, it will set both the
solid_fill *and* pixel_source properties to a valid blob and COLOR
respectively. If it wants to use FB, it will set FB_ID and
pixel_source to a valid FB and FB.
Here's a table illustrating what I've described above:
+-----------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Use Case | Legacy Userspace | solid_fill-aware |
| | | Userspace |
+=================+=========================+=========================+
| Valid FB | pixel_source = FB | pixel_source = FB |
| | FB_ID = valid FB | FB_ID = valid FB |
+-----------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Valid | pixel_source = COLOR | N/A |
| solid_fill blob | solid_fill = valid blob | |
Probably these two cells were swapped.
Ack, yes they were swapped.
+-----------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| NULL commit | pixel_source = FB | pixel_source = FB |
| | FB_ID = NULL | FB_ID = NULL |
+-----------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| or:
| pixel_source = COLOR
| solid_fill = NULL
Is there anything I'm missing or needs to be clarified?
LGTM otherwise
LGTM too.
Hi,
yeah, that sounds fine to me, if everyone thinks that adding a new
property for pixel_source is a good idea. I just assumed it was already
agreed, and based my comments on that.
I don't really remember much of the discussion about a special FB that
is actually a solid fill vs. this two new properties design, so I
cannot currently give an opinion on that, or any other design.
Hi Pekka,
It was discussed in the v3 of this series, but we came to the conclusion
that allocating an FB for solid_fill was unnecessary since solid fill
does not require memory fetch.
Hi,
it just occurred to me that the pixel_source property could be replaced
with the rule that if a solid_fill blob id is 0, then use FD_IB. Or
vice versa. But if someone then adds a third way of setting content on
a plane, it would result in a chain of "if this is 0, then use the next
one" and only if all are 0, there is no content.
Hi Pekka,
Agreed. I would prefer having a pixel_source property as it will be more
extendable than having arbitrary checks.
I'm not sure if that's better or worse. Both designs seem to have the
same backwards compatibility issues, and the exact same impact to
legacy SetCrtc ioctl. Maybe pixel_source property is easier to document
and understand though when there is no "if this does not exist or is 0
then ..." chain.
FWIW, the solid_fill feature will require both the solid_fill and
pixel_source properties. I'll make a note of this in the cover letter.
So, pixel_source is fine by me.
Awesome, thanks for the feedback! Will push a v4 with these changes.
Thanks,
Jessica Zhang
Thanks,
pq
