RE: [RFC 0/3] drm: page-flip with damage

[Deepak Singh Rawat <drawat@vmware.com>]

>Hi,
>
>Many thanks that you have picked it up.
>Unfortunately I didn't had time to work on it for a while.
>
>I am ok with what you have done, ihmo the review is going in good direction.
>I will try not to miss your update of it.
>From my side I can say that damage rects with frame-buffer coordinates are perfectly fine for DisplayLink case.
>
>Btw I have noticed that there is also a patch from Rob Clark that is supplying helper for legacy dirtyfb callback.
>Maybe we should unify the naming of the rects. Here we have "damage_clips", Clark's patch has 'dirty_rects' notion.
>On other hand existing legacy dirtyfb callback in drm_framebuffer_funcs is also using 'clip_rects' :).

The reason to name it damage is inspired by eglSwapBuffersWithDamageKHR
which user-space will be calling before submitting a page-flip. So it makes naming
consistent and in sync with user-space.

>
>Thanks
>
>Łukasz Spintzyk
>
>On 05/04/2018 01:49, Deepak Rawat wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>This is extension to Lukasz Spintzyk earlier draft of damage interface for drm.
>Bascially a new plane property is added called "DAMAGE_CLIPS" which is simply
>an array of drm_rect (exported to userspace as drm_mode_rect). The clips
>represents damage in framebuffer coordinate of attached fb to the plane.
>
>Helper iterator is added to traverse the damage rectangles and get the damage
>clips in framebuffer, plane or crtc coordinates as need by driver
>implementation. Finally a helper to reset damage in case need full update is
>required. Drivers interested in page-flip with damage should call this from
>atomic_check hook.
>
>With the RFC for atomic implementation of dirtyfb ioctl I was thinking
>should we need to consider dirty_fb flags, especially
>DRM_MODE_FB_DIRTY_ANNOTATE_COPY to be passed with atomic
>DAMAGE_CLIPS property blob? I didn't considered that untill now. If no driver
>uses that in my opinion for simplicity this can be ignored?
>
>About overlaping of damage rectangles is also not finalized. This really
>depends on driver specific implementation and can be left open-ended?
>
>My knowledge is limited to vmwgfx so would like to hear about other driver use
>cases and this can be modified in keeping other drivers need.
>
>Going forward driver implementation for vmwgfx and user-space implementation
>of kmscube/weston will be next step to test the changes.
>
>Thanks,
>Deepak
>
>Deepak Rawat (2):
>drm: Add helper iterator functions to iterate over plane damage.
>drm: Add helper to validate damage during modeset_check
>
>Lukasz Spintzyk (1):
>drm: Add DAMAGE_CLIPS property to plane
>
>drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 42 +++++++++
>drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mode_config.c | 5 ++
>drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane.c | 12 +++
>include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h | 41 +++++++++
>include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 15 ++++
>include/drm/drm_plane.h | 16 ++++
>include/uapi/drm/drm_mode.h | 15 ++++
>8 files changed, 319 insertions(+)
>
>-- 
>2.7.4
>