|
Daniel, Thank you for reviewing the patch in short time. My views are
below. On Wednesday 12 July 2017 03:24 PM,
Daniel Vetter wrote:
enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with kobj-ueventOn Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:58:45PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. And also there are Read only status bits for 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <drm/drm_connector.h> #include <drm/drm_edid.h> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" #include "drm_internal.h" @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { }; DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, + "HDCP work in progress" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" },Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other stuff? for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 configuration. And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. But to inform whether both HDCP source and Sink support HDCP1.4/2.2/None I wanted to add the capability bits. These capability flags could be avoided if the presence of the drm_hdcp_property on connector, assures the corresponding HDCP version support on both HDCP src and sink. But for that we need a way to detach/alter the DRM_property of connector based on HDCP sink's hdcp version capability. Need to explore on that direction if that is allowed. Once HDCP protection is enabled link protection might break for many reasons including hot unplug. So Other Error flags are just to give more information to UMD on that scenario. But we can avoid them by setting the state as HDCP_DISABLE and notifying the UMD through Kobj-uevent for HDCP state change. But one concern remains un-addressed that is compliance requirement will force us to reauthenticate in case of failures in authentication or on HDCP enabled link. In that scenario UMD has to be in formed that reauth is in progress. If UMD wants the port to be reenabled it has to wait for the completion of reauth else it has to place request for disabling the HDCP on port. We might want to add a enum value as HDCP_DISABLE_REAUTH. What is your opinion on this? AFAIK, Either way we don't have userspace for HDCP2.2 at present, as CrOS interface is designed forThis also doesn't seem to do the lockdown mode to force hdcp mode. And afair it also doesn't match what CrOS currently uses, which means we don't have userspace for this. HDCP1.4(Need to cross check this with sean). But I will check with seanpaul if there is any plan for extending it for HDCP2.2 too. If so we could enable CrOS as consumer for HDCP2.2 against planned open source consumer from my side. As discussed in cover letter I am starting on a UMD library which will be open sourced as a HDCP1.4 and 2.2 service provider for chromebox stack and Android. At first stage, as we are developing the HDCP2.2 support at DRM at first than HDCP1.4,I think the best approach would be if we simply try to upstream _exactly_ the property CrOS currently uses (not even bothering with type 0 vs type 1 if that's not required), since that is the currently only open source userspace that asks for this. we need to extend CrOS property for HDCP2.2 and then upstream. That will be the fruitful solution for us. --Ram Going with a much more complicated or different interface just because only risks a massive discussion and subsequent long delays. -Daniel |
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
