On 09/20/2017 06:11 PM, Mark Thompson wrote:
On 19/09/17 20:04, Leo Liu wrote:
This series are for VA-API State Tracker Postproc, including:
Deinterlacing I video for transcode;
Scaling support in postproc for transcode;
Frame grabber in postproc
Thanks Andy Furniss <adf.li...@gmail.com> for lots of testing on these.
Leo Liu (14):
st/va/postproc: use video original size for postprocessing
vl/compositor: separate YUV part from shader video buffer function
vl/compositor: extend YUV deint function to do field deint
vl/compositor: add a new function for YUV deint
st/omx: use new vl_compositor_yuv_deint_full() to deint
st/va: use new vl_compositor_yuv_deint_full() to deint
vl/compositor: remove vl_compositor_yuv_deint() function
vl/compositor: add Bob top and bottom to YUV deint function
st/va/postproc: add a full NV12 deint support from buffer I to P
st/va: make internal func vlVaHandleSurfaceAllocate() call simpler
st/va/postproc: use progressive target buffer for scaling
vl/compositor: create RGB to YUV fragment shader
vl/compositor: convert RGB buffer to YUV with color conversion
st/va/postproc: implement the DRM prime grabber
src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c | 263 +++++++++++++++++-----
src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.h | 50 +++-
src/gallium/state_trackers/omx_bellagio/vid_dec.c | 11 +-
src/gallium/state_trackers/va/picture.c | 16 +-
src/gallium/state_trackers/va/postproc.c | 69 +++++-
src/gallium/state_trackers/va/surface.c | 7 +-
src/gallium/state_trackers/va/va_private.h | 2 +-
7 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
Looks good for import from a bit of testing so far (with the update today).
Something funny going on with RGB upload cases? With ffmpeg:
./ffmpeg_g -y -i in.mp4 -an -vaapi_device /dev/dri/renderD129 -vf
format=bgr0,hwupload,scale_vaapi=w=1920:h=1080:format=nv12 -c:v h264_vaapi
-profile:v 578 -bf 0 out.mp4
it crashes a few lines into copying to the image.
The mapping in vlVaMapBuffer() looks like:
(gdb) p *buf->derived_surface.resource
$9 = {reference = {count = 5}, screen = 0x555557829010, width0 = 1920, height0
= 1088, depth0 = 1, array_size = 1, format = PIPE_FORMAT_B8G8R8X8_UNORM, target
= PIPE_TEXTURE_2D, last_level = 0, nr_samples = 0, usage = 0, bind = 2097152,
flags = 0, next = 0x0}
(gdb) p *buf->derived_surface.transfer
$8 = {resource = 0x555557d8e2c0, level = 0, usage = PIPE_TRANSFER_WRITE, box =
{x = 0, y = 0, z = 0, width = 1920, height = 1, depth = 1}, stride = 7680,
layer_stride = 7680}
height = 1 looks suspicious, like it's only mapping the first line?
Looks like the command line crashed at some point where is before you
would to go. i.e RGB->YUV in postproc.
A general question for the whole driver: why are surfaces interlaced by default?
I think it's firmware preferred, and they are also good for deinterlacing.
I may be getting some things wrong here, but the relevant components which deal
with surfaces that I see are:
H
* Decoder: can write either format, the stream type doesn't seem to matter (?).
Normally, HW decoder write to NV12, P016, and for Mjpeg it can do YUYV
as well. Stream type depends on codecs HW supports
* Encoder: can only accept progressive surfaces.
* Deinterlacer: only works on interlaced surfaces (?).
Yes, if you would like to have a pretty picture for
'deinterlace_vappi=mode=3'
* Scaler: can work on either.
* Import: will pretty much always be progressive unless forced not to be (noone
is going to make the interlaced format externally unless they get forced into
it).
If the import usages are for encoder, it have to progressive,
Regards,
Leo
* Export: works for either, but interlaced is likely much harder for others to
use.
The current copy cases (progressive -> interlaced) with the interlaced default,
then, are after most imports and on encode, and it was suggested that we want to do
it before export as well. If surfaces were instead progressive by default then I
think the only copy necessary would be before the deinterlacer. Since most streams
nowadays are progressive (including all >1080-line high-resolution streams, where
performance matters most), and that proportion is only going to increase, improving
other parts for a decrease in performance of the deinterlacer seems like a pretty
good tradeoff to me.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
- Mark
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
