> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Vetter > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:37 AM > To: Konduru, Chandra > Cc: Daniel Vetter; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville > Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] drm/i915: Add NV12 support to > intel_framebuffer_init > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:31:54PM +0000, Konduru, Chandra wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel > Vetter > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:24 AM > > > To: Konduru, Chandra > > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vetter, Daniel; Syrjala, Ville > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] drm/i915: Add NV12 support to > > > intel_framebuffer_init > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:11:01PM -0700, Chandra Konduru wrote: > > > > This patch adds NV12 as supported format to > > > > intel_framebuffer_init and performs various checks. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Testcase: igt/kms_nv12 > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 27 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > index 42924a6..41cd26f 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > @@ -14043,6 +14043,33 @@ static int intel_framebuffer_init(struct > > > drm_device *dev, > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > } > > > > break; > > > > + case DRM_FORMAT_NV12: > > > > + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 9) { > > > > + DRM_DEBUG("unsupported pixel format: %s\n", > > > > + drm_get_format_name(mode_cmd- > > > >pixel_format)); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + if (!mode_cmd->offsets[1]) { > > > > + DRM_DEBUG("uv start offset not set\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > > > Nope. It's perfectly ok to have NV12 with a 0 offset for the uv plane, if > > > it's e.g. in a separate buffer object. Which is the part this series seems > > > to be completely missing - there's no code at all to look up (and store in > > > intel_framebuffer the 2nd i915_bo pointer) the 2nd buffer handle afaics. > > > > > > You should also change your igts to use 2 separate buffers, just for test > > > coverage. > > > -Daniel > > > > Hi Daniel, > > Agree, in general that is very well ok. But as skl hw requires uv to be after > > y in gtt. This can be guaranteed by having a single bo and y and uv offsets > > into it. Above sanity checks in i915 specific fb init call are for that reason. > > There are definitely ways to guarantee uv to be after y even with two > > separate bos (by uv remapping), but I see that is unnecessary > > complication and not sure value by allowing that. Or am I missing > > something here? > > For a start you don't reject multiplane stuff where this isn't the case. > And if we indeed have the hw requirement that the gtt address for y must > be before the gtt address for uv (sounds strange to me, definitely need a > bspec reference for that) then we need to check that throughroughly: > Currently you could place Y after UV even in a single BO. Hi Daniel, NV12 programming is documented in bspec under display planes "Plane Planar YUV programming". There it talks about aux_dist which is the distance between y and uv planes expecting uv to be after y. > > Also we need igts to make sure we catch userspace throwing invalid stuff > at us. Added a sub-test to kms_nv12 and will send out the updated igt patch. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
