On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 10:55:07AM -0500, Kristian H?gsberg wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi > <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:56:34AM -0500, Kristian H?gsberg wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi > >> <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:03:45AM -0500, Kristian H?gsberg wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Pohjolainen, Topi > >> >> <topi.pohjolai...@intel.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:05:25PM +0000, Tom Cooksey wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Topi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The second more or less questionable part is the support for > >> >> >> > creating YUV > >> >> >> > buffers. In order to test for YUV sampling one needs a way of > >> >> >> > providing them > >> >> >> > for the EGL stack. Here I chose to augment the dri driver backing > >> >> >> > gbm as I > >> >> >> > couldn't come up with anything better. It may be helpful to take a > >> >> >> > look at the > >> >> >> > corresponding piglit test case and framework support I've written > >> >> >> > for it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You might want to take a look at the EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import[i] > >> >> >> which has been written > >> >> >> specifically for this purpose. Though this does assume you have a > >> >> >> driver which supports exporting a > >> >> >> YUV buffer it has allocated with dma_buf, such as a v4l2 driver or > >> >> >> even ion on Android. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > It certainly looks good addressing not only the individual plane > >> >> > setup but > >> >> > allowing one to control also the conversion coefficients and > >> >> > subsampling > >> >> > position. > >> >> > Coming from piglit testing point of view, do you have any ideas where > >> >> > to > >> >> > allocate the buffers from? I guess people wouldn't be too happy > >> >> > seeing v4l2 tied > >> >> > into piglit, for example. > >> >> > >> >> SInce you're already using intel specific ioctls to mmap the buffers, > >> >> I'd suggest you just go all the way and allocate using intel specific > >> >> ioctls (like my simple-yuv.c example). I don't really see any other > >> >> approach, but it's not pretty... > >> >> > >> > > >> > I used gbm buffer objects in order to match the logic later in > >> > 'dri2_drm_create_image_khr()' which expects the buffer to be of the type > >> > 'gbm_dri_bo' (gbm_bo) for the target EGL_NATIVE_PIXMAP_KHR. Giving drm > >> > buffer > >> > objects instead would require new target, I guess? > >> > >> Right... I'd use the extension Tom suggests: > >> > >> http://www.khronos.org/registry/egl/extensions/EXT/EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import.txt > >> > >> which is mostly implemented by this patch: > >> > >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-February/035429.html > >> > >> with just the EGL extension bits missing. That way, you're also not > >> dependent on any specific window system. As it is your test has to > >> run under gbm, using the dmabuf import extension it can run under any > >> window system. > > > > Just to clarify that I understood correctly. The actual creation of the > > buffer > > (and dma_buf exporting) would still be via hardware specific ioctls (in > > intel's > > case GEM)? Your and Tom's material address only the importing side, or did I > > miss something? > > Yes, that's correct. You'll need intel create and export to fd > functions, but you are already mapping the bo using intel specific > ioctls. So I think it's cleaner to just have a chipset specific > function to create the bo and return an fd, stride etc, and from there > on it's generic code where you feed it into the dma_buf_import > function.
I have to admit that I've been thinking the testing side keeping android platform in mind. There the gralloc layer already provides hardware independent interface to the cpu-writing-gpu-reading type of sharing and hence I tied the buffer handling into the platform (window system) instead. I was hoping to avoid introducing hardware specifics into piglit using the interface provided by the platform instead. Obviously I failed to do so in case of GBM as I was forced to use the intel specific ioctl. For sake of argument even this could be avoided by pushing it into the platform - one would need to extend the "gbm_dri_bo_write()" to accept not only ARGB8888 but also YUV. The concern I had for not doing it already was that this would be only to support testing (but so is the very YUV support for gbm I introduced). I'm not sure if you have looked the piglit patches I have for the buffer handling and test setup, but there I have pushed platform specifics into the framework logic leaving the test itself generic. This could also accomodate further testing using Tom's extension and hardware specific buffer handling - the platform code in piglit framework could share the logic choosing the hardware, setting it up and providing the buffers for testing. Topi _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
