Regards Shashank
On 10/10/2015 5:24 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi Shashank, > > On 9 October 2015 at 20:29, Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma at intel.com> > wrote: >> BDW/SKL/BXT support Color Space Conversion (CSC) using a 3x3 matrix >> that needs to be programmed into respective CSC registers. >> >> This patch does the following: >> 1. Adds the core function to program CSC correction values for >> BDW/SKL/BXT platform >> 2. Adds CSC correction macros/defines >> >> Signed-off-by: Shashank Sharma <shashank.sharma at intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Kausal Malladi <kausalmalladi at gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Kumar, Kiran S <kiran.s.kumar at intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 7 ++ >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.c | 114 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.h | 12 ++- >> 3 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h >> index ed50f75..0e9d252 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h >> @@ -8085,4 +8085,11 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells { >> (_PIPE3(pipe, PAL_PREC_GCMAX_A, PAL_PREC_GCMAX_B, PAL_PREC_GCMAX_C)) >> >> >> +/* BDW CSC correction */ >> +#define CSC_COEFF_A 0x49010 >> +#define CSC_COEFF_B 0x49110 >> +#define CSC_COEFF_C 0x49210 >> +#define _PIPE_CSC_COEFF(pipe) \ >> + (_PIPE3(pipe, CSC_COEFF_A, CSC_COEFF_B, CSC_COEFF_C)) >> + >> #endif /* _I915_REG_H_ */ >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.c >> index e659382..0a6c00c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color_manager.c >> @@ -330,11 +330,119 @@ static int bdw_set_degamma(struct drm_device *dev, >> return 0; >> } >> >> -static s16 chv_prepare_csc_coeff(s64 csc_value) > As mentioned previously, this should be part of the respective patch. > Agree. Looks like diff is messing up a bit. Will take care of this. >> +static uint32_t bdw_prepare_csc_coeff(int64_t coeff) >> +{ >> + uint32_t reg_val, ls_bit_pos, exponent_bits, sign_bit = 0; >> + int32_t mantissa; >> + uint64_t abs_coeff; >> + >> + coeff = min_t(int64_t, coeff, BDW_CSC_COEFF_MAX_VAL); >> + coeff = max_t(int64_t, coeff, BDW_CSC_COEFF_MIN_VAL); >> + >> + abs_coeff = abs(coeff); >> + if (abs_coeff < (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 3)) { >> + /* abs_coeff < 0.125 */ >> + exponent_bits = 3; >> + ls_bit_pos = 19; >> + } else if (abs_coeff >= (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 3) && >> + abs_coeff < (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 2)) { >> + /* abs_coeff >= 0.125 && val < 0.25 */ >> + exponent_bits = 2; >> + ls_bit_pos = 20; >> + } else if (abs_coeff >= (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 2) >> + && abs_coeff < (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 1)) { >> + /* abs_coeff >= 0.25 && val < 0.5 */ >> + exponent_bits = 1; >> + ls_bit_pos = 21; >> + } else if (abs_coeff >= (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL >> 1) >> + && abs_coeff < BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL) { >> + /* abs_coeff >= 0.5 && val < 1.0 */ >> + exponent_bits = 0; >> + ls_bit_pos = 22; >> + } else if (abs_coeff >= BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL && >> + abs_coeff < (BDW_CSC_COEFF_UNITY_VAL << 1)) { >> + /* abs_coeff >= 1.0 && val < 2.0 */ >> + exponent_bits = 7; >> + ls_bit_pos = 23; >> + } else { >> + /* abs_coeff >= 2.0 && val < 4.0 */ >> + exponent_bits = 6; >> + ls_bit_pos = 24; >> + } >> + >> + mantissa = GET_BITS_ROUNDOFF(abs_coeff, ls_bit_pos, CSC_MAX_VALS); >> + if (coeff < 0) { >> + sign_bit = 1; >> + mantissa = -mantissa; >> + mantissa &= ((1 << CSC_MAX_VALS) - 1); > I think there is a macro for this already ? > Thats for GAMMA_MAX, not for CSC_MAX. Or you mean the whole (1 << CSC_MAX_VALS -1) to be replaced with GET/SET bits ? >> + } >> + >> + reg_val = 0; >> + SET_BITS(reg_val, exponent_bits, 12, 3); >> + SET_BITS(reg_val, mantissa, 3, 9); >> + SET_BITS(reg_val, sign_bit, 15, 1); >> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("CSC: reg_val=0x%x\n", reg_val); >> + return reg_val; >> +} >> + >> +int bdw_set_csc(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_property_blob *blob, >> + struct drm_crtc *crtc) >> +{ > The function should be static ? > Agree. > Regards, > Emil >