Hi, On 12 November 2015 at 12:44, Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 10 November 2015 at 13:23, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patch series introduces a new life into Exynos IPP (Image Post >>> Processing) subsystem by integrating it (transparently for userspace >>> applications) with Exynos DRM core plane management. This means that all >>> CRTC drivers transparently get support for standard features of IPP >>> subsystem like rotation and scaling. >>> >>> Support for features not supported natively by CRTC drivers is >>> implemented with a help of temporary framebuffers, where image data is >>> processed by IPP subsystem before performing the scanout by a CRTC driver. >> >> Hm, interesting. The RPi has a similar setup - VC4 can work either >> online (realtime scanout) or offline (mem2mem). Once the scene crosses >> a certain complexity boundary, it can no longer be composed in >> realtime and must fall back to mem2mem before it can be displayed. >> >> There was talk of having the fallback handled transparently in KMS for >> VC4 - similar to this - but the conclusion seemed to be that it was an >> inappropriate level of hidden complexity for KMS, and instead would >> best be handled by something like HWComposer directing it. Using HWC >> would then let you more intelligently split the scene from userspace >> (e.g. flatten some components but retain others as active planes). > I would be intererested in the performance implications of this > abstraction as well. > > I'd like to use the Exynos FIMC for CSC and scaling, but this operation > of course takes some time. > > I wonder how this interacts with page flipping. If I queue a pageflip > event with a buffer that needs to go through the IPP for display, where > does the delay caused by the operation factor it? If I understand this > correctly drmModePageFlip() still is going to return immediately, but I > might miss the next vblank period because the FIMC is still working on > the buffer. Hmm, from my reading of the patches, this didn't affect page-flip timings. In the sync case, it would block until the buffer was actually displayed, and in the async case, the event would still be delivered at the right time. But you're right that it does introduce hugely variable timings, which can be a problem for userspace which tries to be intelligent. And even then potentially misleading from a performance point of view: if userspace can rotate natively (e.g. as part of a composition blit, or when rendering buffers in the first place), then we can skip the extra work from G2D. > My problem here is that this abstraction would take too much control > from the user. > > Correct me if I have this wrong! I believe that was the concern previously, yeah. :) That, and encoding these semantics in a user-visible way could potentially be dangerous. Cheers, Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |