Re: [PATCH v3] drm/plane: Add documentation about software color conversion.

[Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@redhat.com>]

On 08/09/2023 15:46, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> writes:
> 
> Hello Thomas,
> 
>> Hi Maxime
>>
>> Am 08.09.23 um 12:58 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 11:21:51AM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>>> Am 25.08.23 um 16:04 schrieb Jocelyn Falempe:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + *     But there are two exceptions only for dumb buffers:
>>>>> + *     * To support XRGB8888 if it's not supported by the hardware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + *     * Any driver is free to modify its internal representation of the format,
>>>>> + *       as long as it doesn't alter the visible content in any way, and doesn't
>>>>> + *       modify the user-provided buffer. An example would be to drop the
>>>>> + *       padding component from a format to save some memory bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> I have strong objections to this point, _especially_ as you're apparently
>>>> trying to sneak this in after our discussion.
>>>
>>> I think it's an unfair characterization. This was discussed on
>>> #dri-devel, and went through several rounds over the mailing lists, with
>>> you in Cc for each. How is that sneaking something in?
>>
>> A few months ago, we had a flamewar'ish IRC discussion on format
>> conversion within the kernel. The general sentiment was that the kernel
>> drivers should use what ever is provided by userspace without further
>> processing. The short argument was 'userspace knows better'. The only
>> exception is for supporting XRGB8888 on hardware that would otherwise
>> not support it. After some consideration, I agree with all that. (Back
>> then I didn't.)

I wasn't part of this "flamewar", and though my patch was a bit 
unrelated to this. That's why I started this work to document clearly 
what is acceptable in the kernel or not. I discuss it on IRC, and then 
proposed the patch on dri-devel to find a compromise, and see if my case 
can be acceptable or not.

>>
>> A few weeks ago I received a patch to do an implicit conversion from
>> XRGB8888 to RGB888 within mgag200. [1] I don't have a link to the
>> discussion, but I NAK'ed that patch pretty hard on IRC by following that
>> other discussion.
>>
>> And know I find that this patch (even in its v1) contains language that
>> retroactively legitimizes the mgag200 patch. I wrote 'apparently' I my
>> reply, as I assume that there's more to it, but how does it not look
>> like an attempt to sneak in something that is known to be controversial?
>>

That was not my intention, and I apologize if you feel it this way. My 
goal was just to clarify if this optimization is acceptable for other 
kernel developers, since I though you were willing to accept it, but 
some other developers from the "flamewar" were against.

> 
> While is true that the motivation for Jocelyn's patch was to make explicit
> what are the rules with regard to drivers emulating formats (other than
> "we had a flamewar on IRC a while back" which is quite ambiguous), it was
> not attempt to sneak something that is known to be controversial.
> 
> In fact, it is an attempt to dispel the controversy and document what is
> acceptable and what is not for a driver.
> 
>> It might have been better to discuss the question separately on the
>> dri-devel ML. Maybe we can do this here.
>>
> 
> This was discussed in the #dri-devel IRC channel, I believe you were on
> PTO at the time and probably that's why you missed. I found the logs here:
> 
> https://people.freedesktop.org/~cbrill/dri-log/?channel=dri-devel&date=2023-08-04
> 
> As you can see there, most people agreed that what Jocelyn wrote in his
> doc patch is the most pragmatic compromise.
> 

Best regards,

-- 

Jocelyn