On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:55:34AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:52:00AM +0000, Simon Ser wrote:
> > There have suggestions to bake pitch alignment, address alignement,
> > contiguous memory or other placement (hidden VRAM, GTT/BAR, etc)
> > constraints into modifiers. Last time this was brought up it seemed
> > like the consensus was to not allow this. Document this in drm_fourcc.h.
> >
> > There are several reasons for this.
> >
> > - Encoding all of these constraints in the modifiers would explode the
> > search space pretty quickly (we only have 64 bits to work with).
> > - Modifiers need to be unambiguous: a buffer can only have a single
> > modifier.
> > - Modifier users aren't expected to parse modifiers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Ser <cont...@emersion.fr>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org>
> > Cc: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl>
> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > index 490143500a50..97eb0f1cf9f8 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h
> > @@ -58,6 +58,17 @@ extern "C" {
> > * may preserve meaning - such as number of planes - from the fourcc code,
> > * whereas others may not.
> > *
> > + * Modifiers must uniquely encode buffer layout. In other words, a buffer
> > must
> > + * match only a single modifier. A modifier must not be a subset of
> > layouts of
> > + * another modifier. For instance, it's incorrect to encode pitch
> > alignment in
> > + * a modifier: a buffer may match a 64-pixel aligned modifier and a
> > 32-pixel
> > + * aligned modifier. That said, modifiers can have implicit minimal
> > + * requirements.
>
> I think we should also add the aliasing when the fourcc codes are
> involved, with afbc as example. Maybe:
>
> For modifiers where the combination of fourcc code and modifier can alias,
> a canonical pair needs to be defined and used by all drivers. An example
> is afbc, where both argb and abgr have the exact same compressed layout.
That's actually explicitly _not_ the case for AFBC, which was one of
the things I was trying to document in afbc.rst.
>
> With something like that added:
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
>
>
> > + *
> > + * Users see modifiers as opaque tokens they can check for equality and
> > + * intersect. Users musn't need to know to reason about the modifier value
> > + * (i.e. users are not expected to extract information out of the
> > modifier).
> > + *
Doesn't this conflict with "implicit minimal requirements" above?
Certainly for a bunch of different AFBC modifiers, the allocator would
need to understand some fields in order to properly align-up the
buffer size.
Thanks,
-Brian
> > * Vendors should document their modifier usage in as much detail as
> > * possible, to ensure maximum compatibility across devices, drivers and
> > * applications.
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
