On 2/14/23 14:45, Sebastian Wick wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:57 PM Harry Wentland <harry.wentl...@amd.com> wrote:
On 2/14/23 10:49, Sebastian Wick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:00 PM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:24:52AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
On 2/3/23 10:19, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:39:42AM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
On 2/3/23 07:59, Sebastian Wick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:40 AM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 02:07:44AM +0000, Joshua Ashton wrote:
Userspace has no way of controlling or knowing the pixel encoding
currently, so there is no way for it to ever get the right values here.
That applies to a lot of the other values as well (they are
explicitly RGB or YCC). The idea was that this property sets the
infoframe/MSA/SDP value exactly, and other properties should be
added to for use userspace to control the pixel encoding/colorspace
conversion(if desired, or userspace just makes sure to
directly feed in correct kind of data).
I'm all for getting userspace control over pixel encoding but even
then the kernel always knows which pixel encoding is selected and
which InfoFrame has to be sent. Is there a reason why userspace would
want to control the variant explicitly to the wrong value?
I've asked this before but haven't seen an answer: Is there an existing
upstream userspace project that makes use of this property (other than
what Joshua is working on in gamescope right now)? That would help us
understand the intent better.
The intent was to control the infoframe colorimetry bits,
nothing more. No idea what real userspace there was, if any.
I don't think giving userspace explicit control over the exact infoframe
values is the right thing to do.
Only userspace knows what kind of data it's stuffing into
the pixels (and/or how it configures the csc units/etc.) to
generate them.
Yes, but userspace doesn't control or know whether we drive
RGB or YCbCr on the wire. In fact, in some cases our driver
needs to fallback to YCbCr420 for bandwidth reasons. There
is currently no way for userspace to know that and I don't
think it makes sense.
People want that control as well for whatever reason. We've
been asked to allow YCbCr 4:4:4 output many times.
I don't really think it's a question of if we want it but rather how
we get there. Harry is completely right that if we would make the
subsampling controllable by user space instead of the kernel handling
it magically, user space which does not adapt to the new control won't
be able to light up some modes which worked before.
Thanks for continuing this discussion and touching on the model of how
we get to where we want to go.
This is obviously a problem and not one we can easily fix. We would
need a new cap for user space to signal "I know that I can control
bpc, subsampling and compression to lower the bandwidth and light up
modes which otherwise fail". That cap would also remove all the
properties which require kernel magic to work (that's also what I
proposed for my KMS color pipeline API).
We all want to expose more of the scanout capability and give user
space more control but I don't think an incremental approach works
here and we would all do better if we accept that the current API
requires kernel magic to work and has a few implicit assumptions baked
in.
With all that being said, I think the right decision here is to
1. Ignore subsampling for now
2. Let the kernel select YCC or RGB on the cable
3. Let the kernel figure out the conversion between RGB and YCC based
on the color space selected
4. Let the kernel send the correct infoframe based on the selected
color space and cable encoding
5. Only expose color spaces for which the kernel can do the conversion
and send the infoframe
I agree. We don't want to break or change existing behavior (that is
used by userspace) and this will get us far without breaking things.
6. Work on the new API which is hidden behind a cap
I assume you mean something like
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pq/color-and-hdr/-/issues/11
Something like that, yes. The main point being a cap which removes a
lot of properties and sets new expectations between user space and
kernel. The actual API is not that important.
Above you say that you don't think an incremental approach works
here. Can you elaborate?
Backwards compatibility is really hard. If we add another property to
control e.g. the color range infoframe which doesn't magically convert
colors, we now have to define how it interacts with the existing
property. We also have to figure out how a user space which doesn't
know about the new property behaves when another client has set that
property. If any property which currently might change the pixel
values is used, we can't expose the entire color pipeline because the
kernel might have to use some element in it to achieve its magic
conversion. So essentially you already have this hard device between
"old" and "new" and you can't use the new stuff incrementally.
True. If we go toward a new color API that gives userspace explicit
control of the entire pipeline it is by definition incompatible with
a "legacy" API that touches the same HW.
From what I've seen recently I am inclined to favor an incremental
approach more. The reason is that any API, or portion thereof, is
useless unless it's enabled full stack. When it isn't it becomes
dead code quickly, or never really works because we overlooked
one thing. The colorspace debacle shows how even something as
simple as extra enum values in KMS APIs shouldn't be added unless
someone in a canonical upstream project actually uses them. I
would argue that such a canonical upstream project actually has
to be a production environment and not something like Weston.
I agree that it's very easy to design something that doesn't work in
the real world but weston is a real production environment. Even a new
project can be a real production environment imo. The goals here are
not entirely undefined: we have color transformations and we want to
offload them.
I could see us getting to a fully new color pipeline API but
the only way to do that is with a development model that supports
it. While upstream needs to be our ultimate goal, a good way
to bring in new APIs and ensure a full-stack implementation is
to develop them in a downstream production kernel, alongside
userspace that makes use of it. Once the implementation is
proven in the downstream repos it can then go upstream. This
brings new challenges, though, as things don't get wide
testing and get out of sync with upstream quickly. The
alternative is the incremental approach.
I also agree pretty much with everything here. My current idea is that
we would add support for the new API in a downstream kernel for at
least VKMS (one real driver probably makes sense as well) while in
parallel developing a user space library for color conversions. That
library might be a rewrite of libplacebo, which in its current form
does all the color conversions we want to do but wasn't designed to
allow for offloading. One of the developers expressed interest in
rewriting the library in rust which would be a good opportunity to
also take offloading into account.
Doesn't libplacebo hook into video players, i.e., above the Wayland
protocol layer? Is the idea to bring it into a Wayland compositor
and teach it how to talk to DRM/KMS?
I wonder if it makes sense to somehow combine it with libliftoff for HW
offloading, since that library is already tackling the problem of
deciding whether to offload to KMS.
No doubt all of that will take a significant amount of effort and time
but we can still get HDR working in the old model without offloading
and just sRGB and PQ/Rec2020 code paths.
I would like to get to some form of HDR including offloading by adding
new per-plane LUTs or enumerated transfer functions as "legacy"
properties. This would likely be much more tailored to specific
use-cases than what Weston needs but would allow us to enable multi-plane
HDR in a more reasonable timeframe on applicable HW. These new
properties can educate an all-encompassing new DRM color API.
We should look at this from a use-case angle, similar to what
the gamescope guys are doing. Small steps, like:
1) Add HDR10 output (PQ, BT.2020) to the display
2) Add ability to do sRGB linear blending
3) Add ability to do sRGB and PQ linear blending
4) Post-blending 3D LUT
5) Pre-blending 3D LUT
Sure, having a target in sight is a good idea.
At each stage the whole stack needs to work together in production.
If we go to a new color pipeline programming model it might
make sense to enable this as an "experimental" API that is
under development. I don't know if we've ever done that in
DRM/KMS. One way to do this might be with a new CONFIG option
that only exposes the new color pipeline API when enabled and
defaults to off, alongside a client cap for clients that
are advertising a desire to use the (experimental) API.
Yeah, that's a bit tricky. I also don't know how upstream would like
this approach. Not even sure who to talk to.
Agreed, I'm also not sure whether this would fly. airlied or danvet
might have an opinion.
This thought was inspired by "Blink Intents", which is a mechanism
how new full-stack features land in the Chromium browsers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvzZ5J_DTg
Harry
If we have that we could then look at porting all existing
use-cases over and verifying them (including IGT tests) before
moving on to HDR and wide-gamut use-cases. It's a large
undertaking and while I'm not opposed to it I don't know
if there are enough people willing to invest a large amount
of effort to make this happen.
Harry
The automagic 4:2:0 fallback I think is rather fundementally
incompatible with fancy color management. How would we even
know whether to use eg. BT.2020 vs. BT.709 matrix? In i915
that stuff is just always BT.709 limited range, no questions
asked.
So I think if userspace wants real color management it's
going to have to set up the whole pipeline. And for that
we need at least one new property to control the RGB->YCbCr
conversion (or to explicitly avoid it).
And given that the proposed patch just swept all the
non-BT.2020 issues under the rug makes me think no
one has actually come up with any kind of consistent
plan for anything else really.
Userspace needs full control of framebuffer pixel formats,
as well as control over DEGAMMA, GAMMA, CTM color operations.
It also needs to be able to select whether to drive the panel
as sRGB or BT.2020/PQ but it doesn't make sense for it to
control the pixel encoding on the wire (RGB vs YCbCr).
I really don't want a repeat of the disaster of the
'Broadcast RGB' which has coupled together the infoframe
and automagic conversion stuff. And I think this one would
be about 100x worse given this property has something
to do with actual colorspaces as well.
I'm unaware of this disaster. Could you elaborate?
The property now controls both the infoframe stuff (and
whatever super vague stuff DP has for it in MSA) and
full->limited range compression in the display pipeline.
And as a result there is no way to eg. allow already
limited range input, which is what some people wanted.
And naturally it's all made a lot more terrible by all
the displays that fail to implement the spec correctly,
but that's another topic.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
