Re: [RFC PATCH] drm: Add plane event

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:04:56PM +0200, Marcus Lorentzon wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 02:25 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Joonyoung Shim<jy0922.shim@samsung.com>  wrote:
> >> On 04/18/2012 05:46 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:31:59PM +0900, Joonyoung Shim wrote:
> >>>> DRM_MODE_PLANE_EVENT is similar to DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_EVENT but it is
> >>>> for a plane. The setplane ioctl (DRM_IOCTL_MODE_SETPLANE) needs to
> >>>> provide the event such as DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_EVENT. The setplane ioctl
> >>>> can change the framebuffer of plane but user can't know completion of
> >>>> changing the framebuffer of plane via event. If DRM_MODE_PLANE_EVENT is
> >>>> added, we can also do pageflip of a plane.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim<jy0922.shim@samsung.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
> >>> If I understand the current kms api correctly, set_plane is akin to
> >>> set_base and should not generate an asynchronous flip completion event.
> >>> To
> >>> do that we need a new pageflip ioctl which changes a complete set of fb +
> >>> planes + any crtc attributes that might be in an atomic fashion. At which
> >>> point we can just reuse the existing page flip event mechanism.
> >>
> >> It seems better way to add new pageflip ioctl for plane. I will try it.
> > fwiw, an atomic mode set which can update crtc and zero or more plane
> > layers is, I think, the way to go.  Jesse Barnes had an RFC for this,
> > although IIRC it was only the API and not the implementation.  And
> > combination w/ the plane/crtc properties patchset to allow setting
> > properties as part of the update might not be a bad thing either.
> >
> > BR,
> > -R
> 
> Before planes and rotation properties modeset was atomic (single ioctl). 
> Would it not be possible to define atomic modeset for planes and 
> properties like this?
> 
> SETPROPERTY and SETPLANE (maybe more) should not be commited when set, 
> only on SETCRTC ioctl like before planes. All properties and plane 
> changes before SETCRTC should be considered staged settings for the next 
> SETCRTC.
> If this would break API backwards compatibility, maybe a new "standard" 
> boolean property called EnableAtomicMode could be used to trigger this 
> mode in the drivers. If a driver doesn't support it, things will just 
> work as currently with modeset not being atomic across planes.
> Maybe this could be implemented in the generic parts of KMS, but it 
> could be tried out first inside a driver.

Multi ioctl solution can have some issues since you can't hold any
locks around the whole operation. Also there could be issues if the
process performing the operation dies or hangs in mid operation.
Error handling can also be difficult since the intermediate steps
may violate some constraints in the system.

Also SETCRTC itself is a per-CRTC operation, but we actually want
per-device atomic operations instead.

So I think a single ioctl solution is a better idea. I'm currently
pondering on what the API would look like. Ideally I would like to
go with the "everything is a property" approach, and I'd like to get
rid of some of the other limitations in the current API at the same
time.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC