On 07/13/2015 11:18 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:29:32AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> On 06/15/2015 08:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:50:48PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:12:31PM +0530, Kausal Malladi wrote: >>>>> From: Kausal Malladi <Kausal.Malladi@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> This patch set adds color manager implementation in drm/i915 layer. >>>>> Color Manager is an extension in i915 driver to support color >>>>> correction/enhancement. Various Intel platforms support several >>>>> color correction capabilities. Color Manager provides abstraction >>>>> of these properties and allows a user space UI agent to >>>>> correct/enhance the display. >>>> >>>> So I did a first rough pass on the API itself. The big question that >>>> isn't solved at the moment is: do we want to try to do generic KMS >>>> properties for pre-LUT + matrix + post-LUT or not. "Generic" has 3 levels: >>>> >>>> 1/ Generic for all KMS drivers >>>> 2/ Generic for i915 supported platfoms >>>> 3/ Specific to each platform >>>> >>>> At this point, I'm quite tempted to say we should give 1/ a shot. We >>>> should be able to have pre-LUT + matrix + post-LUT on CRTC objects and >>>> guarantee that, when the drivers expose such properties, user space can >>>> at least give 8 bits LUT + 3x3 matrix + 8 bits LUT. >>>> >>>> It may be possible to use the "try" version of the atomic ioctl to >>>> explore the space of possibilities from a generic user space to use >>>> bigger LUTs as well. A HAL layer (which is already there in some but not >>>> all OSes) would still be able to use those generic properties to load >>>> "precision optimized" LUTs with some knowledge of the hardware. >>> >>> Yeah, imo 1/ should be doable. For the matrix we should be able to be >>> fully generic with a 16.16 format. For gamma one option would be to have >> >> I know I am late replying, apologies for that. >> >> I've been working on CSC support for V4L2 as well (still work in progress) >> and I would like to at least end up with the same low-level fixed point >> format as DRM so we can share matrix/vector calculations. >> >> Based on my experiences I have concerns about the 16.16 format: the precision >> is quite low which can be a problem when such values are used in matrix >> multiplications. >> >> In addition, while the precision may be sufficient for 8 bit color component >> values, I'm pretty sure it will be insufficient when dealing with 12 or 16 bit >> color components. >> >> In earlier versions of my CSC code I used a 12.20 format, but in the latest I >> switched to 32.32. This fits nicely in a u64 and it's easy to extract the >> integer and fractional parts. >> >> If this is going to be a generic and future proof API, then my suggestion >> would be to increase the precision of the underlying data type. > > We discussed this a bit more internally and figured it would be nice to have the same > fixed point for both CSC matrix and LUT/gamma tables. Current consensus > seems to be to go with 8.24 for both. Since LUTs are fairly big I think it > makes sense if we try to be not too wasteful (while still future-proof > ofc). The .24 should have enough precision, but I am worried about the 8: while this works for 8 bit components, you can't use it to represent values >255, which might be needed (now or in the future) for 10, 12 or 16 bit color components. It's why I ended up with 32.32: it's very generic so usable for other things besides CSC. Note that 8.24 is really 7.24 + one sign bit. So 255 can't be represented in this format. That said, all values I'm working with in my current code are small integers (say between -4 and 4 worst case), so 8.24 would work. But I am not at all confident that this is future proof. My gut feeling is that you need to be able to represent at least the max component value + a sign bit + 7 decimals precision. Which makes 17.24. Regards, Hans > > But yeah agreeing on the underlying layout would be good so that we could > share in-kernel code. We're aiming to not have any LUT interpolation in > the kernel (just dropping samples at most if e.g. the hw table doesn't > have linear sample positions). But with the LUT we might need to mutliply > it with an in-kernel one (we need the CSC unit on some platforms to > compress the color output range for hdmi). And maybe compress the LUTs > too. > -Daniel > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
