On 10 March 2017 at 01:48, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> The idea behind modifiers like this is that the user of GBM will have
> some mechanism to query what properties the hardware supports for its BO
> or surface. This information is directly passed in (and stored) so that
> the DRI implementation can create an image with the appropriate
> attributes.
>
> A getter() will be added later so that the user GBM will be able to
> query what modifier should be used.
>
> Only in surface creation, the modifiers are stored until the BO is
> actually allocated. In regular buffer allocation, the correct modifier
> can (will be, in future patches be chosen at creation time.
>
> v2: Make sure to check if count is non-zero in addition to testing if
> calloc fails. (Daniel)
>
> v3: Remove "usage" and "flags" from modifier creation. Requested by
> Kristian.
>
> v4: Take advantage of the "INVALID" modifier added by the GET_PLANE2
> series.
>
> v5: Don't bother with storing modifiers for gbm_bo_create because that's
> a synchronous operation and we can actually select the correct modifier
> at create time (done in a later patch) (Jason)
>
> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net>
> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> References (v4):
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2017-January/116636.html
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@imgtec.com> (v1)
> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com>
> ---
> src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_drm.c | 19 ++++++++++++---
Worth splitting the patches - patch N+1
> src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c | 42
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> src/gbm/gbm-symbols-check | 2 ++
> src/gbm/main/gbm.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> src/gbm/main/gbm.h | 12 +++++++++
> src/gbm/main/gbmint.h | 12 +++++++--
Patch N
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_screen.c | 18 ++++++++++++++
Patch N+Y
> --- a/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c
> +++ b/src/gbm/backends/dri/gbm_dri.c
> @@ -1023,13 +1023,20 @@ free_bo:
> static struct gbm_bo *
> gbm_dri_bo_create(struct gbm_device *gbm,
> uint32_t width, uint32_t height,
> - uint32_t format, uint32_t usage)
> + uint32_t format, uint32_t usage,
> + const uint64_t *modifiers,
> + const unsigned int count)
> {
> struct gbm_dri_device *dri = gbm_dri_device(gbm);
> struct gbm_dri_bo *bo;
> int dri_format;
> unsigned dri_use = 0;
>
> + /* Callers of this may specify a modifier, or a dri usage, but not both.
> The
> + * newer modifier interface deprecates the older usage flags.
> + */
> + assert(!(usage && count));
> +
Similar to last patch - XOR ?
> if (usage & GBM_BO_USE_WRITE || dri->image == NULL)
> return create_dumb(gbm, width, height, format, usage);
>
> @@ -1087,11 +1094,21 @@ gbm_dri_bo_create(struct gbm_device *gbm,
> /* Gallium drivers requires shared in order to get the handle/stride */
> dri_use |= __DRI_IMAGE_USE_SHARE;
>
> - bo->image =
> - dri->image->createImage(dri->screen,
> - width, height,
> - dri_format, dri_use,
> - bo);
> + if (!dri->image || dri->image->base.version < 14 ||
> + !dri->image->createImageWithModifiers) {
> + if (modifiers)
> + fprintf(stderr, "Modifiers specified, but DRI is too old\n");
> +
> + bo->image = dri->image->createImage(dri->screen, width, height,
> + dri_format, dri_use, bo);
With the "modifiers or use" above how do we get sane value for dri_use
in this fall-back ?
Seems like things we'll miss/ignore the scanout/curson/linear flags.
Perhaps it's worth simply bailing out ?
> --- a/src/gbm/gbm-symbols-check
> +++ b/src/gbm/gbm-symbols-check
> +gbm_bo_create_with_modifiers
> +gbm_surface_create_with_modifiers
Thank you :-)
> +GBM_EXPORT struct gbm_bo *
> +gbm_bo_create_with_modifiers(struct gbm_device *gbm,
> + uint32_t width, uint32_t height,
> + uint32_t format,
> + const uint64_t *modifiers,
> + const unsigned int count)
> +{
> + if (width == 0 || height == 0) {
> + errno = EINVAL;
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
Should we validate modifiers and/or count at this level as well ?
> +GBM_EXPORT struct gbm_surface *
> +gbm_surface_create_with_modifiers(struct gbm_device *gbm,
> + uint32_t width, uint32_t height,
> + uint32_t format,
> + const uint64_t *modifiers,
> + const unsigned int count)
> +{
Ditto ? What happens if we feed zero width/height ?
Worth adding a note, even if things are expected to blow up ?
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_screen.c
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_screen.c
> +static uint64_t
> +select_best_modifier(struct gen_device_info *devinfo,
> + const uint64_t *modifiers,
> + const unsigned count)
> +{
> + return DRM_FORMAT_MOD_INVALID;
Worth adding a note why any combination of modifiers is ignored ?
-Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
