On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 11:56:18AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:18:30PM +0000, Klymenko, Anatoliy wrote: > > > On Friday, January 26, 2024 4:26 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 04:23:43PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:28:39AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 03:42:18PM -0800, Anatoliy Klymenko wrote: > > > > > > > Patches 1/4,2/4,3/4 are minor fixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DPSUB requires input live video format to be configured. > > > > > > > Patch 4/4: The DP Subsystem requires the input live video format to be > > > > > > > configured. In this patch we are assuming that the CRTC's bus format is fixed > > > > > > > and comes from the device tree. This is a proposed solution, as there are no api > > > > > > > to query CRTC output bus format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a good approach to go with? > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess you would need to expand a bit on what "live video input" is? Is > > > > > > it some kind of mechanism to bypass memory and take your pixels straight > > > > > > from a FIFO from another device, or something else? > > > > > > > > > > Yes and no. > > > > > > > > > > The DPSUB integrates DMA engines, a blending engine (two planes), and a > > > > > DP encoder. The dpsub driver supports all of this, and creates a DRM > > > > > device. The DP encoder hardware always takes its input data from the > > > > > output of the blending engine. > > > > > > > > > > The blending engine can optionally take input data from a bus connected > > > > > to the FPGA fabric, instead of taking it from the DPSUB internal DMA > > > > > engines. When operating in that mode, the dpsub driver exposes the DP > > > > > encoder as a bridge, and internally programs the blending engine to > > > > > disable blending. Typically, the FPGA fabric will then contain a CRTC of > > > > > some sort, with a driver that will acquire the DP encoder bridge as > > > > > usually done. > > > > > > > > > > In this mode of operation, it is typical for the IP cores in FPGA fabric > > > > > to be synthesized with a fixed format (as that saves resources), while > > > > > the DPSUB supports multiple input formats. > > > > > > > > Where is that CRTC driver? It's not clear to me why the format would > > > > need to be in the device tree at all. Format negociation between the > > > > CRTC and whatever comes next is already done in a number of drivers so > > > > it would be useful to have that kind of API outside of the bridge > > > > support. > > > > > > One example of such CRTC driver: > > > https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/xlnx/xlnx_mixer.c It's not > > > upstreamed yet. Bus format negotiations here are handled by utilizing Xilinx-specific bridge > > > framework. Ideally, it would be nice to rework this to comply with the upstream DRM bridge > > > framework. > > > > > > > > Bridge drivers in the upstream kernel work the other way around, with > > > > > the bridge hardware supporting a limited set of formats, and the CRTC > > > > > then being programmed with whatever the bridges chain needs. Here, the > > > > > negotiation needs to go the other way around, as the CRTC is the > > > > > limiting factor, not the bridge. > > > > > > > > Sounds like there's something to rework in the API then? > > > > > > > Adding an optional CRTC callback imposing CRTC specific bus format restrictions, which may be > > > called from here https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c#L935 > > > would solve the problem. > > > > CRTCs and bridges are orthogonal. If anything, I'd expect that callback > > to be set at the CRTC, encoder and connector levels and filled by the > > drm_bridge code if relevant. > > I'm thinking about a new CRTC operation that would be called by the > bridge chain format negotiation helper > drm_atomic_bridge_chain_select_bus_fmts() (or one of the functions it > calls), to filter the list of formats supported by the chain based on > what the CRTC supports, or possibly to pick a format in that list. This > needs to be prototyped As long as we come up with something that works for regular encoders, I'm fine with that. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
