| Message ID | 1333069366-2774-1-git-send-email-rob.clark@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Rob Clark <rob.clark@linaro.org> wrote: > From: Rob Clark <rob@ti.com> > > A bitmask property is similar to an enum. The enum value is a bit > position (0-63), and valid property values consist of a mask of > zero or more of (1 << enum_val[n]). > > TODO: word commit msg better > TODO: maybe "flags" would be a better name for the property type? > --- > See https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/commit/970b7bb95993fc43b4977976bf8005dc2e1a4ad3#L6R411 > for an example usage. In this case combinations of "x-invert", "y-invert" > and "xy-flip" can express all possible combinations of rotations of > multiples of 90 degrees plus mirroring. Which is sufficient for an > xrandr v1.2 rotation support. For arbitrary transforms in xrandr v1.3 > a different property with a transform matrix (if supported by the > driver) should be used. oh, and this shows the mapping between xrandr rotation/reflection mask and x-invert/y-invert/xy-flip: https://github.com/robclark/xf86-video-omap/commit/87ffbaf9d282831bf03da457e6f6c4e45a0d6b2b#L0R222 The other option is of course to make the rotation bitmask mirror the xrandr rotation mask values, which might be a better option to support drivers which only provide rotation and not mirroring. I'm ok with either option, whatever others prefer. BR, -R > > Note: I've not finished updating libdrm and ddx driver to use this > yet, so other than compile and boot test, you can consider this as > untested. But I figure that it is at least worthwhile to send as > an RFC at this point to get feedback. > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 3 ++ > include/drm/drm_mode.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > index 95c7ab2..2b462f6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c > @@ -2713,6 +2713,33 @@ struct drm_property *drm_property_create_enum(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_property_create_enum); > > +struct drm_property *drm_property_create_bitmask(struct drm_device *dev, > + int flags, const char *name, > + const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, int num_values) > +{ > + struct drm_property *property; > + int i, ret; > + > + flags |= DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK; > + > + property = drm_property_create(dev, flags, name, num_values); > + if (!property) > + return NULL; > + > + for (i = 0; i < num_values; i++) { > + ret = drm_property_add_enum(property, i, > + props[i].type, > + props[i].name); > + if (ret) { > + drm_property_destroy(dev, property); > + return NULL; > + } > + } > + > + return property; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_property_create_bitmask); > + > struct drm_property *drm_property_create_range(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, > const char *name, > uint64_t min, uint64_t max) > @@ -2737,7 +2764,14 @@ int drm_property_add_enum(struct drm_property *property, int index, > { > struct drm_property_enum *prop_enum; > > - if (!(property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM)) > + if (!(property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK))) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + /* > + * Bitmask enum properties have the additional constraint of values > + * from 0 to 63 > + */ > + if ((property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK) && (value > 63)) > return -EINVAL; > > if (!list_empty(&property->enum_blob_list)) { > @@ -2881,7 +2915,7 @@ int drm_mode_getproperty_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > } > property = obj_to_property(obj); > > - if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM) { > + if (property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK)) { > list_for_each_entry(prop_enum, &property->enum_blob_list, head) > enum_count++; > } else if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BLOB) { > @@ -2906,7 +2940,7 @@ int drm_mode_getproperty_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > } > out_resp->count_values = value_count; > > - if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM) { > + if (property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK)) { > if ((out_resp->count_enum_blobs >= enum_count) && enum_count) { > copied = 0; > enum_ptr = (struct drm_mode_property_enum __user *)(unsigned long)out_resp->enum_blob_ptr; > @@ -3063,6 +3097,12 @@ static bool drm_property_change_is_valid(struct drm_property *property, > if (value > property->values[1]) > return false; > return true; > + } else if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK) { > + int i; > + __u64 valid_mask = 0; > + for (i = 0; i < property->num_values; i++) > + valid_mask |= (1 << property->values[i]); > + return !(value & ~valid_mask); > } else { > int i; > for (i = 0; i < property->num_values; i++) > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > index 32e9c51..28e9a78 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h > @@ -940,6 +940,9 @@ extern struct drm_property *drm_property_create_enum(struct drm_device *dev, int > const char *name, > const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, > int num_values); > +struct drm_property *drm_property_create_bitmask(struct drm_device *dev, > + int flags, const char *name, > + const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, int num_values); > struct drm_property *drm_property_create_range(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, > const char *name, > uint64_t min, uint64_t max); > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode.h b/include/drm/drm_mode.h > index de5de2a..3190dfe 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_mode.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode.h > @@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ struct drm_mode_get_connector { > #define DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE (1<<2) > #define DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM (1<<3) /* enumerated type with text strings */ > #define DRM_MODE_PROP_BLOB (1<<4) > +#define DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK (1<<5) /* bitmask of enumerated types */ > > struct drm_mode_property_enum { > __u64 value; > -- > 1.7.9.1 >
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:02:45 -0500, Rob Clark <rob.clark@linaro.org> wrote: > + } else if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK) { > + int i; > + __u64 valid_mask = 0; > + for (i = 0; i < property->num_values; i++) > + valid_mask |= (1 << property->values[i]); This need to be 1LL << property->values[i]. -Chris
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:15:48PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Rob Clark <rob.clark@linaro.org> wrote: > > From: Rob Clark <rob@ti.com> > > > > A bitmask property is similar to an enum. The enum value is a bit > > position (0-63), and valid property values consist of a mask of > > zero or more of (1 << enum_val[n]). > > > > TODO: word commit msg better > > TODO: maybe "flags" would be a better name for the property type? > > --- > > See https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/commit/970b7bb95993fc43b4977976bf8005dc2e1a4ad3#L6R411 > > for an example usage. In this case combinations of "x-invert", "y-invert" > > and "xy-flip" can express all possible combinations of rotations of > > multiples of 90 degrees plus mirroring. Which is sufficient for an > > xrandr v1.2 rotation support. For arbitrary transforms in xrandr v1.3 > > a different property with a transform matrix (if supported by the > > driver) should be used. > > oh, and this shows the mapping between xrandr rotation/reflection mask > and x-invert/y-invert/xy-flip: > https://github.com/robclark/xf86-video-omap/commit/87ffbaf9d282831bf03da457e6f6c4e45a0d6b2b#L0R222 > > The other option is of course to make the rotation bitmask mirror the > xrandr rotation mask values, which might be a better option to support > drivers which only provide rotation and not mirroring. I'm ok with > either option, whatever others prefer. I would prefer something like that, but we shouldn't just blindly copy the exact bit definitions. The xrandr reflection vs. rotation always seemed to be backwards to me. To me it feels more natural to first rotate, and then reflect/mirror. But it could be that I've just been influenced by specific hardware designs. Now that there seems to be a spur of activity in the property area, could we come up with some way to better control what properties get added, and how they're defined. Currently every driver is free to define whatever ad-hoc properties they wish. I would suggest we either A) define some namespace for standard properties, or B) introduce some new property mechanism that actually uses integer property IDs. In either case new properties or changes to existing standard properties should be carefully reviewed. I'm sort of partial to option B, since doing a gazillion string comparisons when pushing lots of properties to the driver seems like a pointless waste of cycles. OTOH option A seems a little less revolutionary. In any case, the current mess just doesn't allow any kind of truly generic user space code to be written.
On 03/30/2012 12:37 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:15:48PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Rob Clark<rob.clark@linaro.org> wrote: >>> From: Rob Clark<rob@ti.com> >>> >>> A bitmask property is similar to an enum. The enum value is a bit >>> position (0-63), and valid property values consist of a mask of >>> zero or more of (1<< enum_val[n]). >>> >>> TODO: word commit msg better >>> TODO: maybe "flags" would be a better name for the property type? >>> --- >>> See https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/commit/970b7bb95993fc43b4977976bf8005dc2e1a4ad3#L6R411 >>> for an example usage. In this case combinations of "x-invert", "y-invert" >>> and "xy-flip" can express all possible combinations of rotations of >>> multiples of 90 degrees plus mirroring. Which is sufficient for an >>> xrandr v1.2 rotation support. For arbitrary transforms in xrandr v1.3 >>> a different property with a transform matrix (if supported by the >>> driver) should be used. >> oh, and this shows the mapping between xrandr rotation/reflection mask >> and x-invert/y-invert/xy-flip: >> https://github.com/robclark/xf86-video-omap/commit/87ffbaf9d282831bf03da457e6f6c4e45a0d6b2b#L0R222 >> >> The other option is of course to make the rotation bitmask mirror the >> xrandr rotation mask values, which might be a better option to support >> drivers which only provide rotation and not mirroring. I'm ok with >> either option, whatever others prefer. > I would prefer something like that, but we shouldn't just blindly copy > the exact bit definitions. The xrandr reflection vs. rotation always > seemed to be backwards to me. To me it feels more natural to first > rotate, and then reflect/mirror. But it could be that I've just been > influenced by specific hardware designs. Exactly, and I would prefer a separate rotation (0,90,180,270) and mirror (true,false) property. I see no reason to merge these using a special bitmask property type. And if there is an issue with atomic commit of rotation and mirror, this does not solve the general atomic commit issue. And if we solve that, we don't need to merge two properties in one. > > Now that there seems to be a spur of activity in the property area, > could we come up with some way to better control what properties get > added, and how they're defined. Currently every driver is free to > define whatever ad-hoc properties they wish. > > I would suggest we either A) define some namespace for standard > properties, or B) introduce some new property mechanism that actually > uses integer property IDs. In either case new properties or changes to > existing standard properties should be carefully reviewed. I'm sort of > partial to option B, since doing a gazillion string comparisons when > pushing lots of properties to the driver seems like a pointless > waste of cycles. OTOH option A seems a little less revolutionary. > > In any case, the current mess just doesn't allow any kind of truly > generic user space code to be written. +1, I think a general mechanism for standard properties would be helpful for applications that want to expose a dynamic interface with settings supplied from kernel. Option A would be easy to add, but option B would make it easy to do atomic commit with normal params and properties (as described in previous email). So why not A+B? Add ids to make setting multiple properties easier and add a name prefix. I assume these property names are IDs and not something intended to be shown to the user directly (i18n). And having standard property names would allow UI to include translations for these properties. Non standard properties could just be shown using their ID. /BR /Marcus
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:15:48PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Rob Clark <rob.clark@linaro.org> wrote: >> > From: Rob Clark <rob@ti.com> >> > >> > A bitmask property is similar to an enum. The enum value is a bit >> > position (0-63), and valid property values consist of a mask of >> > zero or more of (1 << enum_val[n]). >> > >> > TODO: word commit msg better >> > TODO: maybe "flags" would be a better name for the property type? >> > --- >> > See https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/commit/970b7bb95993fc43b4977976bf8005dc2e1a4ad3#L6R411 >> > for an example usage. In this case combinations of "x-invert", "y-invert" >> > and "xy-flip" can express all possible combinations of rotations of >> > multiples of 90 degrees plus mirroring. Which is sufficient for an >> > xrandr v1.2 rotation support. For arbitrary transforms in xrandr v1.3 >> > a different property with a transform matrix (if supported by the >> > driver) should be used. >> >> oh, and this shows the mapping between xrandr rotation/reflection mask >> and x-invert/y-invert/xy-flip: >> https://github.com/robclark/xf86-video-omap/commit/87ffbaf9d282831bf03da457e6f6c4e45a0d6b2b#L0R222 >> >> The other option is of course to make the rotation bitmask mirror the >> xrandr rotation mask values, which might be a better option to support >> drivers which only provide rotation and not mirroring. I'm ok with >> either option, whatever others prefer. > > I would prefer something like that, but we shouldn't just blindly copy > the exact bit definitions. The xrandr reflection vs. rotation always > seemed to be backwards to me. To me it feels more natural to first > rotate, and then reflect/mirror. But it could be that I've just been > influenced by specific hardware designs. well, I'd sort of prefer not having two levels of translating rotation bitmask into something else (ie. userspace xrandr -> kms, then kernel kms -> hw).. so I'd prefer to stick to xrandr bitmasks rather than just shuffle some bits around for the sake of it.. the only advantage I like with x-invert/y-invert/xy-flip is that it doesn't have invalid bitmask combinations (ie. RR_Rotate_0 | RR_Rotate_90) > > Now that there seems to be a spur of activity in the property area, > could we come up with some way to better control what properties get > added, and how they're defined. Currently every driver is free to > define whatever ad-hoc properties they wish. yeah, basically this was why I was bouncing the idea of rotation related properties off the list.. I'd rather use values in omapdrm that we could align on for other drivers BR, -R > I would suggest we either A) define some namespace for standard > properties, or B) introduce some new property mechanism that actually > uses integer property IDs. In either case new properties or changes to > existing standard properties should be carefully reviewed. I'm sort of > partial to option B, since doing a gazillion string comparisons when > pushing lots of properties to the driver seems like a pointless > waste of cycles. OTOH option A seems a little less revolutionary. > > In any case, the current mess just doesn't allow any kind of truly > generic user space code to be written. > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
2012/3/30 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>: > > I would suggest we either A) define some namespace for standard > properties, or B) introduce some new property mechanism that actually > uses integer property IDs. In either case new properties or changes to > existing standard properties should be carefully reviewed. I'm sort of > partial to option B, since doing a gazillion string comparisons when > pushing lots of properties to the driver seems like a pointless > waste of cycles. OTOH option A seems a little less revolutionary. > > In any case, the current mess just doesn't allow any kind of truly > generic user space code to be written. While DRM doesn't have standard properties, RandR has: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/proto/randrproto/tree/randrproto.txt#n1624 . They define "standard (connector) properties", and also define "mandatory" and "optional" properties. And "mandatory" properties have a "mandatory since" to indicate the protocol version made the properties mandatory. The protocol also defines that driver-specific properties should start with "_". Can't we try to add some document (or header file) defining the standard properties and add a way to distinguish between? Documentation/drm/properties.txt? BTW, renaming current properties is not an option, right? Or are the property names not considered part of the ABI? Current code relies on those names, so if they change... If we consider the possibility of renaming properties, I'd suggest just copying the RandR standardization rules... Here is a list of property names currently used under drivers/gpu/drm (list may be smaller than reality): - drm: "bottom margin" "brightness" "contrast" "dirty" "dithering" "DPMS" "EDID" "flicker reduction" "hue" "left margin" "mode" "overscan" "right margin" "saturation" "scaling mode" "select subconnector" "subconnector" "top margin" - gma500: "backlight" "bottom_margin" "brightness" "contrast" "dot_crawl" "flicker_filter" "flicker"filter_2d" "flicker_filter_adaptive" "hpos" "hue" "left_margin" "mode" "right_margin" "saturation" "sharpness" "top_margin" "tv_chroma_filter" "tv_luma_filter" "vpos" - i2c: "scale" - i915: "audio" "bottom_margin" "brightness" "Broadcast RGB" "contrast" "dot_crawl" "flicker_filter" "flicker_filter_2d" "flicker_filter_adaptive" "hpos" "hue" "left_margin" "mode" "right_margin" "rotation" "saturation" "sharpness" "top_margin" "tv_chroma_filter" "tv_luma_filter" "underscan hborder" "underscan vborder" "vpos" - nouveau: "color vibrance" "dithering depth" "dithering mode" "underscan" "underscan hborder" "underscan vborder" "vibrant hue" - radeon: "coherent" "load detection" "tmds_pll" "tv standard" "underscan" "underscan hborder" "underscan vborder" Cheers, Paulo
2012/3/30 Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>: > Can't we try to add some document > (or header file) defining the standard properties and add a way to > distinguish between? Documentation/drm/properties.txt? > After looking at the list names, maybe we should define that standard properties should be named with "BIG LETTERS ONLY" and non-standard should be not-only-BIG-LETTERS? This will be backwards-compatible if we define EDID and DPMS as standard properties (and they don't need to be mandatory).
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c index 95c7ab2..2b462f6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c @@ -2713,6 +2713,33 @@ struct drm_property *drm_property_create_enum(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_property_create_enum); +struct drm_property *drm_property_create_bitmask(struct drm_device *dev, + int flags, const char *name, + const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, int num_values) +{ + struct drm_property *property; + int i, ret; + + flags |= DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK; + + property = drm_property_create(dev, flags, name, num_values); + if (!property) + return NULL; + + for (i = 0; i < num_values; i++) { + ret = drm_property_add_enum(property, i, + props[i].type, + props[i].name); + if (ret) { + drm_property_destroy(dev, property); + return NULL; + } + } + + return property; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_property_create_bitmask); + struct drm_property *drm_property_create_range(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, const char *name, uint64_t min, uint64_t max) @@ -2737,7 +2764,14 @@ int drm_property_add_enum(struct drm_property *property, int index, { struct drm_property_enum *prop_enum; - if (!(property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM)) + if (!(property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK))) + return -EINVAL; + + /* + * Bitmask enum properties have the additional constraint of values + * from 0 to 63 + */ + if ((property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK) && (value > 63)) return -EINVAL; if (!list_empty(&property->enum_blob_list)) { @@ -2881,7 +2915,7 @@ int drm_mode_getproperty_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, } property = obj_to_property(obj); - if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM) { + if (property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK)) { list_for_each_entry(prop_enum, &property->enum_blob_list, head) enum_count++; } else if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BLOB) { @@ -2906,7 +2940,7 @@ int drm_mode_getproperty_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, } out_resp->count_values = value_count; - if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM) { + if (property->flags & (DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM | DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK)) { if ((out_resp->count_enum_blobs >= enum_count) && enum_count) { copied = 0; enum_ptr = (struct drm_mode_property_enum __user *)(unsigned long)out_resp->enum_blob_ptr; @@ -3063,6 +3097,12 @@ static bool drm_property_change_is_valid(struct drm_property *property, if (value > property->values[1]) return false; return true; + } else if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK) { + int i; + __u64 valid_mask = 0; + for (i = 0; i < property->num_values; i++) + valid_mask |= (1 << property->values[i]); + return !(value & ~valid_mask); } else { int i; for (i = 0; i < property->num_values; i++) diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h index 32e9c51..28e9a78 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h @@ -940,6 +940,9 @@ extern struct drm_property *drm_property_create_enum(struct drm_device *dev, int const char *name, const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, int num_values); +struct drm_property *drm_property_create_bitmask(struct drm_device *dev, + int flags, const char *name, + const struct drm_prop_enum_list *props, int num_values); struct drm_property *drm_property_create_range(struct drm_device *dev, int flags, const char *name, uint64_t min, uint64_t max); diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode.h b/include/drm/drm_mode.h index de5de2a..3190dfe 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_mode.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode.h @@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ struct drm_mode_get_connector { #define DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE (1<<2) #define DRM_MODE_PROP_ENUM (1<<3) /* enumerated type with text strings */ #define DRM_MODE_PROP_BLOB (1<<4) +#define DRM_MODE_PROP_BITMASK (1<<5) /* bitmask of enumerated types */ struct drm_mode_property_enum { __u64 value;
From: Rob Clark <rob@ti.com> A bitmask property is similar to an enum. The enum value is a bit position (0-63), and valid property values consist of a mask of zero or more of (1 << enum_val[n]). TODO: word commit msg better TODO: maybe "flags" would be a better name for the property type? --- See https://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4/commit/970b7bb95993fc43b4977976bf8005dc2e1a4ad3#L6R411 for an example usage. In this case combinations of "x-invert", "y-invert" and "xy-flip" can express all possible combinations of rotations of multiples of 90 degrees plus mirroring. Which is sufficient for an xrandr v1.2 rotation support. For arbitrary transforms in xrandr v1.3 a different property with a transform matrix (if supported by the driver) should be used. Note: I've not finished updating libdrm and ddx driver to use this yet, so other than compile and boot test, you can consider this as untested. But I figure that it is at least worthwhile to send as an RFC at this point to get feedback. drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/drm/drm_crtc.h | 3 ++ include/drm/drm_mode.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)