On 2018-04-06 08:56 PM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 06:41 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-04-06 06:18 PM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net>
>>>> On 2018-03-27 07:53 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>>>> On 12 March 2018 at 20:45, Mario Kleiner
>>>>> <mario.kleiner...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We need to distinguish if a backing pixmap of a window is
>>>>>> XRGB2101010 or XBGR2101010, as different gpu hw supports
>>>>>> different formats. NVidia hw prefers XBGR, whereas AMD and
>>>>>> Intel are happy with XRGB.
>>>>>> We use the red channel mask of the visual to distinguish at
>>>>>> depth 30, but because we can't easily get the associated
>>>>>> visual of a Pixmap, we use the visual of the x-screens root
>>>>>> window instead as a proxy.
>>>>>> This fixes desktop composition of color depth 30 windows
>>>>>> when the X11 compositor uses EGL.
>>>>> I have no reason to doubt your testing, so this patch is:
>>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com>
>>>>> But it does rather fill me with trepidation, given that X11 Pixmaps
>>>>> are supposed to be a dumb 'bag of bits', doing nothing else than
>>>>> providing the same number and size of channels to the actual client
>>>>> data for the Visual associated with the Window.
>>>> As far as X11 is concerned, the number of channels and their sizes
>>>> even matter; a pixmap is simply a container for an unsigned integer
>>>> of n
>>>> bits (where n is the pixmap depth) per pixel, with no inherent meaning
>>>> attached to those values.
>>>> That said, I'm not sure this is true for EGL as well. But even if it
>>>> isn't, there would have to be another mechanism to determine the
>>>> e.g. a config associated with the EGL pixmap. The pixmap doesn't even
>>>> necessarily have the same depth as the root window, so using the
>>>> latter's visual doesn't make much sense.
>>> Hi Michel. I thought with this patch i was implementing what you
>>> proposed earlier as a heuristic on how to get around the "pixmaps
>>> don't have an inherent format, only a depth" problem?
>> Do you have a pointer to that discussion?
> Ok, apologies, i think i was just taking your comment too far as an
> inspiration. The best i can find in my inbox atm. is this message of
> yours from 24th November 2017 10:44 AM in a mesa-dev thread "Re:
> [Mesa-dev] 10-bit Mesa/Gallium support":
> "Apologies for the badly formatted followup before, let's try that again:
> On 2017-11-23 07:31 PM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>> 3. In principle the clean solution for nouveau would be to upgrade the
>> ddx to drmAddFB2 ioctl, and use xbgr2101010 scanout to support
>> everything back to nv50+, but everything we have in X or Wayland is
>> meant for xrgb2101010 not xbgr2101010. And we run into ambiguities of
>> what, e.g., a depth 30 pixmap means in some extensions like
> A pixmap itself never has a format per se, it's just a container for an
> n-bit integer value per pixel (where n is the pixmap depth). A
> compositor using GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap has to determine the format
> from the corresponding window's visual.
> There's nothing in there that suggests my root window solution.
> I guess i thought given that we can not get the visual of the window
> corresponding to the pixmap, let's find some window which is a good enough
> proxy for onscreen windows with associated depth 30 pixmaps on the same
A pixmap isn't necessarily associated with any window.
>>> My (possibly inaccurate) understanding is that one can only create a
>>> depth 30 pixmap if the x-screen runs at depth >= 30. It only exposes
>>> depth 30 as supported pixmap format (xdpyinfo) if xorg.conf
>>> DefaultDepth 30 is selected, whereas other depths like
>>> 1,4,8,15,16,24,32 are always supported at default depth 24.
>> That sounds like an X server issue. Just like 32, there's no fundamental
>> reason a pixmap couldn't have depth 30 despite the screen depth being lower.
>> Out of curiosity, can you share the output of xdpyinfo with nouveau at
>> depth 30?
> At least i don't remember seeing any "depth 30, ..." line ever on any
> driver+gpu combo if i run X at default depth 24?
I'm not questioning that's currently the case, I'm saying there's no
particular reason for it, so expect it to change at some point.
I'm interested in the full xdpyinfo *at screen depth 30*, in particular
whether it lists only one variant of depth 30 visuals. If so, one
possibility for a kludge would be to just look at any depth 30 visual.
> The basic problem with EGL based compositing is that for eglCreateImageKHR()
> all we have is the EGLDisplay and EGLContext used for importing an image
Is there no EGLConfig associated somehow?
P.S. IME nouveau is in for a world of pain in general with a format
which doesn't start at bit 0. Once upon a time, I explored this approach
for depth 24 on big-endian hosts, but ran into lots of issues both in
xserver and on the client side.
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
mesa-dev mailing list