On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 07:34:00PM +0530, Sharma, Swati2 wrote:
> On 15-Oct-19 6:04 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:20:04PM +0530, Sharma, Swati2 wrote:
> >> On 09-Oct-19 7:46 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:25:41PM +0530, Swati Sharma wrote:
> >>>> For icl+, have hw read out to create hw blob of gamma
> >>>> lut values. icl+ platforms supports multi segmented gamma
> >>>> mode by default, add hw lut creation for this mode.
> >>>>
> >>>> This will be used to validate gamma programming using dsb
> >>>> (display state buffer) which is a tgl specific feature.
> >>>>
> >>>> Major change done-removal of readouts of coarse and fine segments
> >>>> because PAL_PREC_DATA register isn't giving propoer values.
> >>>> State checker limited only to "fine segment"
> >>>>
> >>>> v2: -readout code for multisegmented gamma has to come
> >>>> up with some intermediate entries that aren't preserved
> >>>> in hardware (Jani N)
> >>>> -linear interpolation (Ville)
> >>>> -moved common code to check gamma_enable to specific funcs,
> >>>> since icl doesn't support that
> >>>> v3: -use u16 instead of __u16 [Jani N]
> >>>> -used single lut [Jani N]
> >>>> -improved and more readable for loops [Jani N]
> >>>> -read values directly to actual locations and then fill gaps [Jani
> >>>> N]
> >>>> -moved cleaning to patch 1 [Jani N]
> >>>> -renamed icl_read_lut_multi_seg() to icl_read_lut_multi_segment to
> >>>> make it similar to icl_load_luts()
> >>>> -renamed icl_compute_interpolated_gamma_blob() to
> >>>> icl_compute_interpolated_gamma_lut_values() more sensible, I guess
> >>>> v4: -removed interpolated func for creating gamma lut values
> >>>> -removed readouts of fine and coarse segments, failure to read
> >>>> PAL_PREC_DATA
> >>>> correctly
> >>>> v5: -added gamma_enable check inside read_luts()
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Swati Sharma <swati2.sha...@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 6 ++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c
> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c
> >>>> index fa44eb73d088..614e0ad386ca 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_color.c
> >>>> @@ -1477,6 +1477,25 @@ static int glk_gamma_precision(const struct
> >>>> intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int icl_gamma_precision(const struct intel_crtc_state
> >>>> *crtc_state)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + if ((crtc_state->gamma_mode & POST_CSC_GAMMA_ENABLE) == 0)
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + switch (crtc_state->gamma_mode & GAMMA_MODE_MODE_MASK) {
> >>>> + case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_8BIT:
> >>>> + return 8;
> >>>> + case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_10BIT:
> >>>> + return 10;
> >>>> + case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_12BIT_MULTI_SEGMENTED:
> >>>> + return 16;
> >>>> + default:
> >>>> + MISSING_CASE(crtc_state->gamma_mode);
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> int intel_color_get_gamma_bit_precision(const struct intel_crtc_state
> >>>> *crtc_state)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct intel_crtc *crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc_state->base.crtc);
> >>>> @@ -1488,7 +1507,9 @@ int intel_color_get_gamma_bit_precision(const
> >>>> struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_stat
> >>>> else
> >>>> return i9xx_gamma_precision(crtc_state);
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> - if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) || IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> >>>> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11)
> >>>> + return icl_gamma_precision(crtc_state);
> >>>> + else if (IS_CANNONLAKE(dev_priv) ||
> >>>> IS_GEMINILAKE(dev_priv))
> >>>> return glk_gamma_precision(crtc_state);
> >>>> else if (IS_IRONLAKE(dev_priv))
> >>>> return ilk_gamma_precision(crtc_state);
> >>>> @@ -1519,6 +1540,20 @@ static bool intel_color_lut_entry_equal(struct
> >>>> drm_color_lut *lut1,
> >>>> return true;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static bool intel_color_lut_entry_multi_equal(struct drm_color_lut
> >>>> *lut1,
> >>>> + struct drm_color_lut
> >>>> *lut2,
> >>>> + int lut_size, u32 err)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int i;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
> >>>> + if (!err_check(&lut1[i], &lut2[i], err))
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> bool intel_color_lut_equal(struct drm_property_blob *blob1,
> >>>> struct drm_property_blob *blob2,
> >>>> u32 gamma_mode, u32 bit_precision)
> >>>> @@ -1537,16 +1572,8 @@ bool intel_color_lut_equal(struct
> >>>> drm_property_blob *blob1,
> >>>> lut_size2 = drm_color_lut_size(blob2);
> >>>>
> >>>> /* check sw and hw lut size */
> >>>> - switch (gamma_mode) {
> >>>> - case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_8BIT:
> >>>> - case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_10BIT:
> >>>> - if (lut_size1 != lut_size2)
> >>>> - return false;
> >>>> - break;
> >>>> - default:
> >>>> - MISSING_CASE(gamma_mode);
> >>>> - return false;
> >>>> - }
> >>>> + if (lut_size1 != lut_size2)
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>>
> >>>> lut1 = blob1->data;
> >>>> lut2 = blob2->data;
> >>>> @@ -1554,13 +1581,18 @@ bool intel_color_lut_equal(struct
> >>>> drm_property_blob *blob1,
> >>>> err = 0xffff >> bit_precision;
> >>>>
> >>>> /* check sw and hw lut entry to be equal */
> >>>> - switch (gamma_mode) {
> >>>> + switch (gamma_mode & GAMMA_MODE_MODE_MASK) {
> >>>> case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_8BIT:
> >>>> case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_10BIT:
> >>>> if (!intel_color_lut_entry_equal(lut1, lut2,
> >>>> lut_size2, err))
> >>>> return false;
> >>>> break;
> >>>> + case GAMMA_MODE_MODE_12BIT_MULTI_SEGMENTED:
> >>>> + if (!intel_color_lut_entry_multi_equal(lut1, lut2,
> >>>> + lut_size2, err))
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you need a new function for that. Just pass 9 as the size
> >>> to intel_color_lut_entry_equal() ?
> >>
> >> I had made a separate function for multi-segmented gamma since there
> >> will be 3 loops for comparing superfine, fine and course segments which
> >> wont go with intel_lut_entry_equal() structure.
> >>
> >> Right now we are limiting to superfine segment only but in future we
> >> will add for other segments too (once we get fix from h/w)
> >>
> >> Func() should look like this. Actually there is no need to passing
> >> lut_size only in this function if we continue with this function only.
> >>
> >> +static bool intel_color_lut_entry_multi_equal(struct drm_color_lut *lut1,
> >> + struct drm_color_lut *lut2,
> >> + int lut_size, u32 err)
> >> +{
> >> + int i;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
> >> + if (!err_check(&lut1[i], &lut2[i], err))
> >> + return false;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 1; i < 257; i++) {
> >> + if (!err_check(&lut1[i * 8], &lut2[i * 8], err))
> >> + return false;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
> >> + if (!err_check(&lut1[i * 8 * 128], &lut2[i * 8 * 128],
> >> err))
> >> + return false;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> Please suggest.
> >
> > There's not much point in duplicating code until it's proven to
> > be required. Who knows when the hw gets fixed, maybe never.
> Now, got your point. Thanks!
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, should probably rename that to just intel_color_lut_equal() since
> >>> it checks the entire LUT (or at least the specified subset) and not
> >>> just a single entry...
> Already intel_color_lut_equal() function exits, should i rename that to
> intel_color_blob_equal() or intel_color_gamma_blob()? and make this func
> intel_color_lut_entry_equal() to intel_color_lut_equal() as suggested by
> you?
Hmm. In that case I think just s/entry/entries/ would make sense.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
