Am 19.05.21 um 11:34 schrieb Pekka Paalanen: > On Wed, 12 May 2021 16:04:16 +0300 > Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:06:56PM +0200, Werner Sembach wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> In addition to the existing "max bpc", and "Broadcast RGB/output_csc" drm properties I propose 4 new properties: >>> "preferred pixel encoding", "active color depth", "active color range", and "active pixel encoding" >>> >>> >>> Motivation: >>> >>> Current monitors have a variety pixel encodings available: RGB, YCbCr 4:4:4, YCbCr 4:2:2, YCbCr 4:2:0. >>> >>> In addition they might be full or limited RGB range and the monitors accept different bit depths. >>> >>> Currently the kernel driver for AMD and Intel GPUs automatically configure the color settings automatically with little >>> to no influence of the user. However there are several real world scenarios where the user might disagree with the >>> default chosen by the drivers and wants to set his or her own preference. >>> >>> Some examples: >>> >>> 1. While RGB and YCbCr 4:4:4 in theory carry the same amount of color information, some screens might look better on one >>> than the other because of bad internal conversion. The driver currently however has a fixed default that is chosen if >>> available (RGB for Intel and YCbCr 4:4:4 for AMD). The only way to change this currently is by editing and overloading >>> the edid reported by the monitor to the kernel. >>> >>> 2. RGB and YCbCr 4:4:4 need a higher port clock then YCbCr 4:2:0. Some hardware might report that it supports the higher >>> port clock, but because of bad shielding on the PC, the cable, or the monitor the screen cuts out every few seconds when >>> RGB or YCbCr 4:4:4 encoding is used, while YCbCr 4:2:0 might just work fine without changing hardware. The drivers >>> currently however always default to the "best available" option even if it might be broken. >>> >>> 3. Some screens natively only supporting 8-bit color, simulate 10-Bit color by rapidly switching between 2 adjacent >>> colors. They advertise themselves to the kernel as 10-bit monitors but the user might not like the "fake" 10-bit effect >>> and prefer running at the native 8-bit per color. >>> >>> 4. Some screens are falsely classified as full RGB range wile they actually use limited RGB range. This results in >>> washed out colors in dark and bright scenes. A user override can be helpful to manually fix this issue when it occurs. >>> >>> There already exist several requests, discussion, and patches regarding the thematic: >>> >>> - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/476 >>> >>> - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1548 >>> >>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/7/695 >>> >>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/11/416 >>> > ... > >>> Adoption: >>> >>> A KDE dev wants to implement the settings in the KDE settings GUI: >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/476#note_912370 >>> >>> Tuxedo Computers (my employer) wants to implement the settings desktop environment agnostic in Tuxedo Control Center. I >>> will start work on this in parallel to implementing the new kernel code. >> I suspect everyone would be happier to accept new uapi if we had >> multiple compositors signed up to implement it. > I think having Weston support for these would be good, but for now it > won't be much of an UI: just weston.ini to set, and the log to see what > happened. Since a first version of the patch set is now feature complete, please let me know if a MR regarding this is started. Thanks > > However, knowing what happened is going to be important for color > calibration auditing: > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/-/issues/467 > > Yes, please, very much for read-only properties for the feedback part. > Properties that both userspace and kernel will write are hard to deal > with in general. > > Btw. "max bpc" I can kind of guess that conversion from framebuffer > format to the wire bpc happens automatically and only as the final > step, but "Broadcast RGB" is more complicated: is the output from the > abstract pixel pipeline sent as-is and "Broadcast RGB" is just another > inforframe bit to the monitor, or does "Broadcast RGB" setting actually > change what happens in the pixel pipeline *and* set infoframe bits? > > My vague recollection is that framebuffer was always assumed to be in > full range, and then if "Broadcast RGB" was set to limited range, the > driver would mangle the pixel pipeline to convert from full to limited > range. This means that it would be impossible to have limited range > data in a framebuffer, or there might be a double-conversion by > userspace programming a LUT for limited->full and then the driver > adding full->limited. I'm also confused how full/limited works when > framebuffer is in RGB/YCbCr and the monitor wire format is in RGB/YCbCr > and there may be RGB->YCbCR or YCbCR->RGB conversions going on - or > maybe even FB YCbCR -> RGB -> DEGAMMA -> CTM -> GAMMA -> YCbCR. > > I wish someone drew a picture of the KMS abstract pixel pipeline with > all the existing KMS properties in it. :-) > > > Thanks, > pq _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
