On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:20:24PM +0000, Sharma, Shashank wrote: >> Hi Ville, >> >> Thanks for your time and comments. >> I can understand two basic problems what you see in this implementation: >> >> 1. The most important issue from my POV is that it can't be part of the atomic modeset. >> 2. it make the whole API inconsistent. >> >> I am not sure if its good to block all current implementation because we have thought something for this in atomic modeset. >> I think even in atomic modeset we need the core implementation like this, but the interface would be different, which might come in from of a DRM property. >> So at that time we can use this core implementation as it is, only the interfaces/framework needs to be changed. >> >> In this way we can always go ahead with a current implementation, and can just change the interfaces to fit in to the final interface like DRM property in atomic modeset. >> Or you can suggest us the expected interface, and we can work on modifying that as per expectation. > > The exptected interface will be range properties for stuff like > brightness, contrast etc. controls. There are already such things as > connector properties, but we're going to want something similar as > plane or crtc properties. One thing that worries me about such > properties though is whether we can make them hardware agnostic and > yet allow userspace precise control over the final image. That is, if we > map some fixed input range to a hardware specific output range, userspace > can't know how the actual output will change when the input changes. On > the other hand if the input is hardware specific, userspace can't know > what value to put in there to get the expected change on the output side. > > For bigger stuff like CSC matrices and gamma ramps we will want to use > some reasonably well defined blobs. Ie. the internal strucuture of the > blob has to be documented and it shouldn't contain more than necessary. > Ie. just the CSC matrix coefficients for one matrix, or just the entries > for a single gamma ramp. Again ideally we should make the blobs hardware > agnostic, but still allow precise control over the output data. > > I think this is going to involve first going over our hardware features, > trying to find the common patterns between different generations. If > there's a way to make something that works across the board for us, or > at least across a wide range, then we should also ask for some input on > dri-devel whether the proposed property would work for other people. We > may need to define new property types to more precisely define what the > value of the property actually means. > Our hardware has similar features, so I'm sure there will be quite a bit of common ground. I also vote for properties. Alex _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
