On 07/13/2015 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> 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. > > The idea is to steal from GL and always normalize everything to [0.0, > 1.0], irrespective of the source color format. We need that in drm since > if you blend together planes with different formats it's completely > undefined which one you should pick. 8 bits of precision for values out of > range should be enough ;-) That doesn't really help much, using a [0-1] range just means that you need more precision for the fraction since the integer precision is now added to the fractional precision. So for 16-bit color components the 8.24 format will leave you with only 8 bits precision if you scale each component to the [0-1] range. That's slightly more than 2 decimals. I don't believe that is enough. If you do a gamma table lookup and then feed the result to a CSC matrix you need more precision if you want to get accurate results. > Oh and we might need those since for CSC and at least some LUTs you can do > this. Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What does 'those' and 'this' refer to? > It's probably needed if your destination color space is much smaller > than the source and you need to expand it. Will result in some clamping > ofc. > -Daniel > Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
