On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:12:56AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 18-04-18 om 20:35 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:06:57PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >> Op 18-04-18 om 17:32 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:38:13AM +0530, Vidya Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> We skip src trunction/adjustments for
> >>>> NV12 case and handle the sizes directly.
> >>>> Without this, pipe fifo underruns are seen on APL/KBL.
> >>>>
> >>>> v2: For NV12, making the src coordinates multiplier of 4
> >>>>
> >>>> v3: Moving all the src coords handling code for NV12
> >>>> to skl_check_nv12_surface
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Srinivas <vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 15 ++++++++++----
> >>>> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>> index 925402e..b8dbaca 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >>>> @@ -3118,6 +3118,42 @@ static int skl_check_main_surface(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int
> >>>> +skl_check_nv12_surface(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> >>>> + struct intel_plane_state *plane_state)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int crtc_x2 = plane_state->base.crtc_x + plane_state->base.crtc_w;
> >>>> + int crtc_y2 = plane_state->base.crtc_y + plane_state->base.crtc_h;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (((plane_state->base.src_x >> 16) % 4) != 0 ||
> >>>> + ((plane_state->base.src_y >> 16) % 4) != 0 ||
> >>>> + ((plane_state->base.src_w >> 16) % 4) != 0 ||
> >>>> + ((plane_state->base.src_h >> 16) % 4) != 0) {
> >>>> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("src coords must be multiple of 4 for NV12\n");
> >>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>> + }
> >>> I don't really see why we should check these. The clipped coordinates
> >>> are what matters.
> >> To propagate our limits to the userspace. I think we should do it for all formats,
> >> but NV12 is the first YUV format we have tests for. If we could we should do
> >> something similar for the other YUV formats, but they have different requirements.
> >>
> >> In case of NV12 we don't have existing userspace, there will be nothing that
> >> breaks if we enforce limits from the start.
> > But what about sub-pixel coordinates? You're totally ignoring them here.
> > We need to come up with some proper rules for this stuff.
>
> Would we break anything if we disallow sub-pixel coordinates for i915 globally? It's not like we supported them before,
> but I'm not sure that change would break anything.
Not really I suppose. IIRC the hw did reintroduce partial sub-pixel
coordinate support for NV12 specifically. I do wish they'd done it
fully for all formats.
>
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /* Clipping would cause a 1-3 pixel gap at the edge of the screen? */
> >>>> + if ((crtc_x2 > crtc_state->pipe_src_w && crtc_state->pipe_src_w % 4) ||
> >>>> + (crtc_y2 > crtc_state->pipe_src_h && crtc_state->pipe_src_h % 4)) {
> >>>> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("It's not possible to clip %u,%u to %u,%u\n",
> >>>> + crtc_x2, crtc_y2,
> >>>> + crtc_state->pipe_src_w, crtc_state->pipe_src_h);
> >>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>> + }
> >>> Why should we care? The current code already plays it fast and loose
> >>> and allows the dst rectangle to shrink to accomodate the hw limits.
> >>> If we want to change that we should change it universally.
> >> Unfortunately for the other formats we already have an existing userspace
> >> (X.org) that doesn't perform any validation. We can't change it for that,
> >> but we can prevent future mistakes.
> > We should do it uniformly. Not per-format. That will make the code
> > unmaintainable real quick.
> >>>> +
> >>>> + plane_state->base.src.x1 =
> >>>> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(plane_state->base.src.x1, 1 << 18) << 18;
> >>>> + plane_state->base.src.x2 =
> >>>> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(plane_state->base.src.x2, 1 << 18) << 18;
> >>>> + plane_state->base.src.y1 =
> >>>> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(plane_state->base.src.y1, 1 << 18) << 18;
> >>>> + plane_state->base.src.y2 =
> >>>> + DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(plane_state->base.src.y2, 1 << 18) << 18;
> >>> Since this can now increase the size of the source rectangle our
> >>> scaling factor checks are no longer 100% valid. We might end up with
> >>> a scaling factor that is too high.
> >>>
> >>> I don't really like any of these "let's make NV12 behave special"
> >>> tricks. We should make the code behave the same way for all pixel
> >>> formats instead of adding format specific hacks.
> >> This is not nivalid because we restrict the original src coordinates to be
> >> a multiple of 4, you can only clip to something smaller, not to something
> >> bigger. :)
> > The clipped coordinates can be whatever thanks to scaling/etc.
>
> Yes, but it will always be smaller than the original rectangle, so rounding to 4 when
> the original set of coordinates were a multiple of 4 would never go outside the original
> boundary.
I was talking about the scaling factor increasing, and potentially
exceeding the hardware maximum.
>
> > Also why are we trying to make everything a multiple of four? I don't
> > remember any hw restrictions like that.
>
> Well Vidya already replied, it sucks but it's what we have to live with for now. :(
That was just about the plane height. Nothing seems to require making
everything a multiple of four.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
