Re: [PATCH v13 12/17] drm/i915: Upscale scaler max scale for NV12

[Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>]

Op 14-03-18 om 16:35 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:36:32AM +0000, Srinivas, Vidya wrote:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:03 PM
>>> To: Srinivas, Vidya <vidya.srinivas@intel.com>; intel-
>>> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> Cc: Syrjala, Ville <ville.syrjala@intel.com>; Lankhorst, Maarten
>>> <maarten.lankhorst@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v13 12/17] drm/i915: Upscale scaler max scale
>>> for NV12
>>>
>>> Op 14-03-18 om 11:31 schreef Srinivas, Vidya:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:55 PM
>>>>> To: Srinivas, Vidya <vidya.srinivas@intel.com>; intel-
>>>>> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>> Cc: Syrjala, Ville <ville.syrjala@intel.com>; Lankhorst, Maarten
>>>>> <maarten.lankhorst@intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v13 12/17] drm/i915: Upscale scaler
>>>>> max scale for NV12
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 14-03-18 om 10:52 schreef Maarten Lankhorst:
>>>>>> Op 09-03-18 om 09:48 schreef Vidya Srinivas:
>>>>>>> From: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch updates scaler max limit support for NV12
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v2: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v3: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v4: Missed the Tested-by/Reviewed-by in the previous series Adding
>>>>>>> the same to commit message in this version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v5: Addressed review comments from Ville and rebased
>>>>>>> - calculation of max_scale to be made less convoluted by splitting
>>>>>>> it up a bit
>>>>>>> - Indentation errors to be fixed in the series
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v6: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>> Fixed review comments from Paauwe, Bob J Previous version, where a
>>>>>>> split of calculation was done, was wrong. Fixed that issue here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v7: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v8: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v9: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v10: Rebased (me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v11: Addressed review comments from Shashank Sharma Alignment
>>>>> issues
>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>> When call to skl_update_scaler is made, 0 was being sent instead of
>>>>>>> pixel_format.
>>>>>>> When crtc update scaler is called, we dont have the fb to derive
>>>>>>> the pixel format. Added the function parameter bool
>>>>>>> plane_scaler_check to account for this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v12: Fixed failure in IGT debugfs_test.
>>>>>>> fb is NULL in skl_update_scaler_plane Due to this, accessing
>>>>>>> fb->format caused failure.
>>>>>>> Patch checks fb before using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v13: In the previous version there was a flaw.
>>>>>>> In skl_update_scaler during plane_scaler_check if the format was
>>>>>>> non-NV12, it would set need_scaling to false. This could reset the
>>>>>>> previously set need_scaling from a previous condition check. Patch
>>>>>>> fixes this.
>>>>>>> Patch also adds minimum src height for YUV 420 formats to 16 (as
>>>>>>> defined in BSpec) and adds for checking this range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tested-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chandra Konduru <chandra.konduru@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nabendu Maiti <nabendu.bikash.maiti@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Srinivas <vidya.srinivas@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 78
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h     |  4 +-
>>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  |  3 +-
>>>>>>>  3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>>>>> index 34f7225..7fd8354 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>>>>>>> @@ -3466,6 +3466,8 @@ static u32 skl_plane_ctl_format(uint32_t
>>>>> pixel_format)
>>>>>>>  		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 |
>>>>> PLANE_CTL_YUV422_UYVY;
>>>>>>>  	case DRM_FORMAT_VYUY:
>>>>>>>  		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_YUV422 |
>>>>> PLANE_CTL_YUV422_VYUY;
>>>>>>> +	case DRM_FORMAT_NV12:
>>>>>>> +		return PLANE_CTL_FORMAT_NV12;
>>>>>>>  	default:
>>>>>>>  		MISSING_CASE(pixel_format);
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>> @@ -4705,7 +4707,9 @@ static void cpt_verify_modeset(struct
>>>>>>> drm_device *dev, int pipe)  static int  skl_update_scaler(struct
>>>>>>> intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>>>>>>  		  unsigned int scaler_user, int *scaler_id,
>>>>>>> -		  int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h)
>>>>>>> +		  int src_w, int src_h, int dst_w, int dst_h,
>>>>>>> +		  bool plane_scaler_check,
>>>>>>> +		  uint32_t pixel_format)
>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>>  	struct intel_crtc_scaler_state *scaler_state =
>>>>>>>  		&crtc_state->scaler_state;
>>>>>>> @@ -4723,6 +4727,10 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state
>>>>> *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>>>>>>  	 */
>>>>>>>  	need_scaling = src_w != dst_w || src_h != dst_h;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	if (plane_scaler_check)
>>>>>>> +		if (pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12)
>>>>>>> +			need_scaling = true;
>>>>>> Seems redundant to add plane_scaler_check, if you can just check for
>>>>> scaler_user != SKL_CRTC_INDEX.
>>>>>> But since pixel_format is always 0 for crtc index, you can just
>>>>>> check
>>>>> pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12 directly..
>>>>>>>  	if (crtc_state->ycbcr420 && scaler_user == SKL_CRTC_INDEX)
>>>>>>>  		need_scaling = true;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -4763,17 +4771,32 @@ skl_update_scaler(struct intel_crtc_state
>>>>> *crtc_state, bool force_detach,
>>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  	/* range checks */
>>>>>>> -	if (src_w < SKL_MIN_SRC_W || src_h < SKL_MIN_SRC_H ||
>>>>>>> -		dst_w < SKL_MIN_DST_W || dst_h < SKL_MIN_DST_H ||
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> -		src_w > SKL_MAX_SRC_W || src_h > SKL_MAX_SRC_H ||
>>>>>>> -		dst_w > SKL_MAX_DST_W || dst_h > SKL_MAX_DST_H) {
>>>>>>> -		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("scaler_user index %u.%u: src %ux%u
>>>>> dst %ux%u "
>>>>>>> -			"size is out of scaler range\n",
>>>>>>> -			intel_crtc->pipe, scaler_user, src_w, src_h, dst_w,
>>>>> dst_h);
>>>>>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> -	}
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> +	if (plane_scaler_check && pixel_format == DRM_FORMAT_NV12) {
>>>>>>> +		if (src_h > SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H)
>>>>>>> +			goto check_scaler_range;
>>>>>>> +		else
>>>>>>> +			goto failed_range;
>>>>>>> +	} else {
>>>>>>> +		if (src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H)
>>>>>>> +			goto check_scaler_range;
>>>>>>> +		else
>>>>>>> +			goto failed_range;
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>> Since nv12 always needs scaling, could we refuse to create NV12 fb's
>>>>>> with
>>>>> height < 16 in intel_framebuffer_init?
>>>>> Hm we should probably reject this in that place anyway, but since
>>>>> src_h >= SKL_MIN_YUV_420_SRC_H implies src_h >= SKL_MIN_SRC_H
>>> we
>>>>> don't need special handling, and can just do if (pixel_format == NV12
>>>>> && src_h >= 16) return -EINVAL; and keep the existing checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Maarten
>>>> Thank you, I will make this change and float the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Vidya
>>> For the framebuffer creation also require minimum width then, since it
>>> needs to be SKL_MIN_SRC_W too..
>> As such there is no restriction on width for YUV in Bspec. It only mentions
>> about the height.
> Do remember to consider 90/270 degree rotation. That's still supported
> with NV12 is it not?
>
Should we also force a minimum width of 16 then?

Minimum width of 8 was based on SKL_MIN_SRC_W, since scaler is always enabled for NV12 that ends up being a restriction for the format.

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx