Hi,
On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 11:03 +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:28:58PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > In order to check whether the backend supports a specific format, an
> > explicit list and a related helper are introduced.
> >
> > They are then used to determine whether the frontend should be used
> > for
> > a layer, when the format is not supported by the backend.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkow...@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c | 48
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > index 274a1db6fa8e..7703ba989743 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_backend.c
> > @@ -172,6 +172,39 @@ static int
> > sun4i_backend_drm_format_to_layer(u32 format, u32 *mode)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static const uint32_t sun4i_backend_formats[] = {
> > + /* RGB */
> > + DRM_FORMAT_ARGB4444,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_RGBA4444,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_ARGB1555,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_RGBA5551,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_RGB565,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_RGB888,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_XRGB8888,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_BGRX8888,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_ARGB8888,
> > + /* YUV422 */
> > + DRM_FORMAT_YUYV,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_YVYU,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_UYVY,
> > + DRM_FORMAT_VYUY,
>
> Ordering them by alphabetical order would be better.
Frankly I find it a lot harder to read when the formats are not grouped
by "family". This is the drm_fourcc enumeration order, which has some
kind of logic behind it. What is the advantage of alphabetical ordering
here?
> > +};
> > +
> > +bool sun4i_backend_format_is_supported(uint32_t fmt)
> > +{
> > + bool found = false;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sun4i_backend_formats); i++) {
> > + if (sun4i_backend_formats[i] == fmt) {
> > + found = true;
> > + break;
>
> return true?
Definitely.
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return found;
> > +}
> > +
> > int sun4i_backend_update_layer_coord(struct sun4i_backend *backend,
> > int layer, struct drm_plane
> > *plane)
> > {
> > @@ -436,15 +469,28 @@ static bool
> > sun4i_backend_plane_uses_frontend(struct drm_plane_state *state)
> > {
> > struct sun4i_layer *layer = plane_to_sun4i_layer(state-
> > >plane);
> > struct sun4i_backend *backend = layer->backend;
> > + struct drm_framebuffer *fb = state->fb;
> >
> > if (IS_ERR(backend->frontend))
> > return false;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Let's pretend that every format is either supported by
> > the backend or
> > + * the frontend. This is not true in practice, as some
> > tiling modes are
> > + * not supported by either. There is still room to check
> > this later in
> > + * the atomic check process.
>
> Then I guess there these tiling modes will not be exposed and we won't
> ever get that far, wouldn't we?
This comment is indeed a bit irrelevant at this stage given that the
tiling modifier was not introduced yet. So in practice, this never
happens with this patch. I should probably move it to a subsequent one.
> > + */
> > + if (!sun4i_backend_format_is_supported(fb->format->format))
> > + return true;
>
> Even though there's a comment, this is not really natural. We are
> checking whether the frontend supports the current plane_state, so it
> just makes more sense to check whether the frontend supports the
> format, rather than if the backend doesn't support them.
The rationale behind this logic is that we should try to use the backend
first and only use the frontend as a last resort. Some formats are
supported by both and checking that the backend supports a format first
ensures that we don't bring up the frontend without need.
Cheers,
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
