lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] drm: Add generic colorkey properties for display planes
Date
Hi Dmitry,

Thank you for the patch.

On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 20:22:01 EEST Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
>
> Color keying is the action of replacing pixels matching a given color
> (or range of colors) with transparent pixels in an overlay when
> performing blitting. Depending on the hardware capabilities, the
> matching pixel can either become fully transparent or gain adjustment
> of the pixels component values.
>
> Color keying is found in a large number of devices whose capabilities
> often differ, but they still have enough common features in range to
> standardize color key properties. This commit adds new generic DRM plane
> properties related to the color keying, providing initial color keying
> support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 20 +++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/drm/drm_blend.h | 3 +
> include/drm/drm_plane.h | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 264 insertions(+)

[snip]

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c
> index a16a74d7e15e..13c61dd0d9b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@
> * planes. Without this property the primary plane is always below the
> cursor * plane, and ordering between all other planes is undefined.
> *
> + * colorkey:
> + * Color keying is set up with drm_plane_create_colorkey_properties().
> + * It adds support for actions like replacing a range of colors with a
> + * transparent color in the plane. Color keying is disabled by default.
> + *
> * Note that all the property extensions described here apply either to the
> * plane or the CRTC (e.g. for the background color, which currently is not
> * exposed and assumed to be black).
> @@ -448,3 +453,148 @@ int drm_atomic_normalize_zpos(struct drm_device *dev,
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_atomic_normalize_zpos);
> +
> +static const char * const plane_colorkey_mode_name[] = {
> + [DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_DISABLED] = "disabled",
> + [DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_TRANSPARENT] = "transparent",
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * drm_plane_create_colorkey_properties - create colorkey properties
> + * @plane: drm plane
> + * @supported_modes: bitmask of supported color keying modes
> + *
> + * This function creates the generic color keying properties and attaches
> them
> + * to the @plane to enable color keying control for blending operations.
> + *
> + * Glossary:
> + *
> + * Destination plane:
> + * Plane to which color keying properties are applied, this planes takes
> + * the effect of color keying operation. The effect is determined by a
> + * given color keying mode.
> + *
> + * Source plane:
> + * Pixels of this plane are the source for color key matching operation.
> + *
> + * Color keying is controlled by these properties:
> + *
> + * colorkey.plane_mask:
> + * The mask property specifies which planes participate in color key
> + * matching process, these planes are the color key sources.
> + *
> + * Drivers return an error from their plane atomic check if plane can't be
> + * handled.

This seems fragile to me. We don't document how userspace determines which
planes need to be specified here, and we don't document what happens if a
plane underneath the destination plane is not specified in the mask. More
precise documentation is needed if we want to use such a property.

It also seems quite complex. Is an explicit plane mask really the best option
? What's the reason why planes couldn't be handled ? How do drivers determine
that ?

> + * colorkey.mode:
> + * The mode is an enumerated property that controls how color keying
> + * operates.

A link to the drm_plane_colorkey_mode enum documentation would be useful.

> + * colorkey.mask:
> + * This property specifies the pixel components mask. Unmasked pixel
> + * components are not participating in the matching. This mask value is
> + * applied to colorkey.min / max values. The mask value is given in a
> + * 64-bit integer in ARGB16161616 format, where A is the alpha value and
> + * R, G and B correspond to the color components. Drivers shall convert
> + * ARGB16161616 value into appropriate format within planes atomic check.
> + *
> + * Drivers return an error from their plane atomic check if mask can't be
> + * handled.
> + *
> + * colorkey.min, colorkey.max:
> + * These two properties specify the colors that are treated as the color
> + * key. Pixel whose value is in the [min, max] range is the color key
> + * matching pixel. The minimum and maximum values are expressed as a
> + * 64-bit integer in ARGB16161616 format, where A is the alpha value and
> + * R, G and B correspond to the color components. Drivers shall convert
> + * ARGB16161616 value into appropriate format within planes atomic check.
> + * The converted value shall be *rounded up* to the nearest value.
> + *
> + * When a single color key is desired instead of a range, userspace shall
> + * set the min and max properties to the same value.
> + *
> + * Drivers return an error from their plane atomic check if range can't be
> + * handled.
> + *
> + * Returns:
> + * Zero on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */

While you're defining the concept of source and destination planes, it's not
clear from the documentation how all this maps to the usual source and
destination color keying concepts. I think that should be documented as well
or users will be confused. Examples could help in this area.

[snip]

> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_plane.h b/include/drm/drm_plane.h
> index 8a152dc16ea5..ab6a91e6b54e 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_plane.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_plane.h

[snip]

> @@ -32,6 +33,52 @@ struct drm_crtc;
> struct drm_printer;
> struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx;
>
> +/**
> + * enum drm_plane_colorkey_mode - uapi plane colorkey mode enumeration
> + */

If it's uAPI, should it be moved to include/uapi/drm/ ?

> +enum drm_plane_colorkey_mode {
> + /**
> + * @DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_DISABLED:
> + *
> + * No color matching performed in this mode.

Do you mean "No color keying" ?

> + */
> + DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_DISABLED,
> +
> + /**
> + * @DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_TRANSPARENT:
> + *
> + * Destination plane pixels are completely transparent in areas
> + * where pixels of a source plane are matching a given color key
> + * range, in other cases pixels of a destination plane are unaffected.

How do we handle hardware that performs configurable color replacement instead
of a fixed fully transparency ? That was included in my original proposal and
available in R-Car hardware.

> + * In areas where two or more source planes overlap, the topmost
> + * plane takes precedence.
> + */
> + DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODE_TRANSPARENT,
> +
> + /**
> + * @DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODES_NUM:
> + *
> + * Total number of color keying modes.
> + */
> + DRM_PLANE_COLORKEY_MODES_NUM,

This one, however, shouldn't be part of the uAPI as it will change when we
will add new modes.

> +};

[snip]

> @@ -779,5 +846,29 @@ static inline struct drm_plane *drm_plane_find(struct
> drm_device *dev, #define drm_for_each_plane(plane, dev) \
> list_for_each_entry(plane, &(dev)->mode_config.plane_list, head)
>
> +/**
> + * drm_colorkey_extract_component - get color key component value
> + * @ckey64: 64bit color key value
> + * @comp_name: name of 16bit color component to extract
> + * @nbits: size in bits of extracted component value
> + *
> + * Extract 16bit color component of @ckey64 given by @comp_name (alpha,
> red,
> + * green or blue) and convert it to an unsigned integer that has bit-width
> + * of @nbits (result is rounded-up).
> + */
> +#define drm_colorkey_extract_component(ckey64, comp_name, nbits) \
> + __DRM_CKEY_CLAMP(__DRM_CKEY_CONV(ckey64, comp_name, nbits), nbits)
> +
> +#define __drm_ckey_alpha_shift 48
> +#define __drm_ckey_red_shift 32
> +#define __drm_ckey_green_shift 16
> +#define __drm_ckey_blue_shift 0
> +
> +#define __DRM_CKEY_CONV(ckey64, comp_name, nbits) \
> + DIV_ROUND_UP((u16)((ckey64) >> __drm_ckey_ ## comp_name ## _shift), \
> + 1 << (16 - (nbits)))

As the divisor is a power of two, could we use masking instead of a division ?
Or do you expect the compiler to optimize it properly ?

> +#define __DRM_CKEY_CLAMP(value, nbits) \
> + min_t(u16, (value), (1 << (nbits)) - 1)

Would the following be simpler to read and a bit more efficient as it avoids
the division ?

static inline u16 __drm_colorkey_extract_component(u64 ckey64,
unsigned int shift,
unsigned int nbits)
{
u16 mask = (1 << (16 - nbits)) - 1;

return ((u16)(ckey >> shift) + mask) >> (16 - nbits);
}

#define drm_colorkey_extract_component(ckey64, comp_name, nbits) \
__drm_colorkey_extract_component(ckey64, __drm_ckey_ ## comp_name ##
_shift, nbits)

> #endif

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-14 11:49    [W:0.065 / U:1.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site