> -----Original Message----- > From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:55 PM > To: Srinivas, Vidya <vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Syrjala, Ville <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx>; Lankhorst, Maarten > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 12/17] drm/i915: Upscale scaler max scale > for NV12 > > Op 14-03-18 om 10:52 schreef Maarten Lankhorst: > > Op 09-03-18 om 09:48 schreef Vidya Srinivas: > >> From: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This patch updates scaler max limit support for NV12 > >> > >> v2: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v3: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v4: Missed the Tested-by/Reviewed-by in the previous series Adding > >> the same to commit message in this version. > >> > >> v5: Addressed review comments from Ville and rebased > >> - calculation of max_scale to be made less convoluted by splitting it > >> up a bit > >> - Indentation errors to be fixed in the series > >> > >> v6: Rebased (me) > >> Fixed review comments from Paauwe, Bob J Previous version, where a > >> split of calculation was done, was wrong. Fixed that issue here. > >> > >> v7: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v8: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v9: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v10: Rebased (me) > >> > >> v11: Addressed review comments from Shashank Sharma Alignment > issues > >> fixed. > >> When call to skl_update_scaler is made, 0 was being sent instead of > >> pixel_format. > >> When crtc update scaler is called, we dont have the fb to derive the > >> pixel format. Added the function parameter bool plane_scaler_check to > >> account for this. > >> > >> v12: Fixed failure in IGT debugfs_test. > >> fb is NULL in skl_update_scaler_plane Due to this, accessing > >> fb->format caused failure. > >> Patch checks fb before using. > >> > >> v13: In the previous version there was a flaw. > >> In skl_update_scaler during plane_scaler_check if the format was > >> non-NV12, it would set need_scaling to false. This could reset the > >> previously set need_scaling from a previous condition check. Patch > >> fixes this. > >> Patch also adds minimum src height for YUV 420 formats to 16 (as > >> defined in BSpec) and adds for checking this range. > >> > >> Tested-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Nabendu Maiti <nabendu.bikash.maiti@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Vidya Srinivas <vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 78 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 4 +- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 3 +- > >> 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >> index 34f7225..7fd8354 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > >> @@ -3466,6 +3466,8 @@ static u32 skl_plane_ctl_format(uint32_t > pixel_format) > >> return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 | > PLANE_CTL_YUV422_UYVY; > >> case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY: > >> return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 | > PLANE_CTL_YUV422_VYUY; > >> + case DRM_FORMAT_NV12: > >> + return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_NV12; > >> default: > >> MISSING_CASE(pixel_format); > >> } > >> @@ -4705,7 +4707,9 @@ static void cpt_verify_modeset(struct > >> drm_device *dev, int pipe) static int skl_update_scaler(struct > >> intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, bool force_detach, > >> unsigned int scaler_user, int *scaler_id, > >> - int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h) > >> + int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h, > >> + bool plane_scaler_check, > >> + uint32_t pixel_format) > >> { > >> struct intel_crtc_scaler_state *scaler_state = > >> &crtc_state->scaler_state; > >> @@ -4723,6 +4727,10 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state > *crtc_state, bool force_detach, > >> */ > >> need_scaling = src_w != dst_w || src_h != dst_h; > >> > >> + if (plane_scaler_check) > >> + if (pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) > >> + need_scaling = true; > > Seems redundant to add plane_scaler_check, if you can just check for > scaler_user != SKL_CRTC_INDEX. > > But since pixel_format is always 0 for crtc index, you can just check > pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12 directly.. > > > >> if (crtc_state->ycbcr420 && scaler_user == SKL_CRTC_INDEX) > >> need_scaling = true; > >> > >> @@ -4763,17 +4771,32 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state > *crtc_state, bool force_detach, > >> } > >> > >> /* range checks */ > >> - if (src_w < SKL_MIN_SRC_W || src_h < SKL_MIN_SRC_H || > >> - dst_w < SKL_MIN_DST_W || dst_h < SKL_MIN_DST_H || > >> - > >> - src_w > SKL_MAX_SRC_W || src_h > SKL_MAX_SRC_H || > >> - dst_w > SKL_MAX_DST_W || dst_h > SKL_MAX_DST_H) { > >> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("scaler_user index %u.%u: src %ux%u > dst %ux%u " > >> - "size is out of scaler range\n", > >> - intel_crtc->pipe, scaler_user, src_w, src_h, dst_w, > dst_h); > >> - return -EINVAL; > >> - } > >> - > >> + if (plane_scaler_check && pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) { > >> + if (src_h > SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H) > >> + goto check_scaler_range; > >> + else > >> + goto failed_range; > >> + } else { > >> + if (src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H) > >> + goto check_scaler_range; > >> + else > >> + goto failed_range; > >> + } > > Since nv12 always needs scaling, could we refuse to create NV12 fb's with > height < 16 in intel_framebuffer_init? > Hm we should probably reject this in that place anyway, but since src_h >= > SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H implies src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H we don't need > special handling, and can just do if (pixel_format == NV12 && src_h >= 16) > return -EINVAL; and keep the existing checks. > > ~Maarten Thank you, I will make this change and float the patch. Regards Vidya _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
