On 2019-07-19 07:29, Sean Paul wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:15:28PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:55:58AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:05:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:18:42AM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
> > > On 2019-07-16 02:07, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:46:44AM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
/snip
> > > > > drm: add mode flags in uapi for seamless mode switch
> > > >
> > > > I think the uapi is the trivial part here, the real deal is how
> > > > userspace
> > > > uses this. Can you pls post the patches for your compositor?
> > > >
> > > > Also note that we already allow userspace to tell the kernel whether
> > > > flickering is ok or not for a modeset. msm driver could use that to at
> > > > least tell userspace whether a modeset change is possible. So you can
> > > > already implement glitch-free modeset changes for at least video mode.
> > > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > I believe you are referring to the below tv property of the connector.
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * @tv_flicker_reduction_property: Optional TV property to control the
> > > * flicker reduction mode.
> > > */
> > > struct drm_property *tv_flicker_reduction_property;
> >
> > Not even close :-)
> >
> > I mean the DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_ALLOW_MODESET flag for the atomic ioctl. This
> > is not a property of a mode, this is a property of a _transition_ between
> > configurations. Some transitions can be done flicker free, others can't.
>
> Agree that an atomic flag on a commit is the way to accomplish this. It's pretty
> similar to the psr transitions, where we want to reuse most of the atomic
> circuitry, but in a specialized way. We'd also have to be careful to only
> involve the drm objects which are seamless modeset aware (you could imagine
> a bridge chain where the bridges downstream of the first bridge don't care).
>
> >
> > There's then still the question of how to pick video vs command mode, but
> > imo better to start with implementing the transition behaviour correctly
> > first.
>
> Connector property? Possibly a terrible idea, but I wonder if we could [re]use
> the vrr properties for command mode. The docs state that the driver has the
> option of putting upper and lower bounds on the refresh rate.
Not really sure why this needs new props and whatnot. This is kinda
what
the i915 "fastset" stuff already does:
1. userspace asks for something to be changed via atomic
2. driver calculates whether a modeset is actually required
3. atomic validates need_modeset() vs. DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_ALLOW_MODESET
4. if (need_modeset) heavyweight_commit() else lightweight_commit()
Ie. why should userspace really care about anything except the
"flickers are OK" vs. "flickers not wanted" thing?
Agree, I don't think the seamless modeset (ie: changing resolution
without
flicker) needs a property. Just need to test the commit without
ALLOW_MODESET
and commit it if the test passes.
Agreed that a TEST_ONLY commit without ALLOW_MODESET flag can be used to
check
whether the modeset can be done seamless. But since there are no error
code returns,
the client cannot distinguish the test_only commit failures from other
invalid config failures.
Also, note that when the client sees two 1080p modes (vid/cmd) and it is
interested only
to do *only* seamless switches, without any additional flag it cannot
distinguish between
these two 1080p modes. The client has to invoke two test_only commits
with these
modes to identify the seamless one. Is that a preferred approach?
Intel's "fastset" calculates the need for modeset internally based on
the
configuration and chooses the best commit path. But the requirement here
is to expose the information up-front since the use case cannot afford
to fall back to the normal modeset when it has requested for a seamless
one.
Also what's the benefit of using video mode if your panel supportes
command mode? Can you turn off the memory in the panel and actually
save power that way? And if there is a benefit can't the driver just
automagically switch between the two based on how often things are
getting updated? That would match how eDP PSR already works.
I'm guessing video mode might have some latency benefits over command
mode?
Sean
Yes. Pretty much those are reasons we need to switch to video mode. But
instead
of making the decision internal to the driver based on the frequency of
frame updates,
we have proprietary use cases where the client has to trigger the switch
explicitly.
So we are trying to find ways to represent the same resolution in both
video/cmd modes.
Thanks and Regards,
Jeykumar S.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
--
Jeykumar S
