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 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..

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