Re: [Intel-gfx] New uAPI for color management proposal and feedback request

[Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com>]

Am 19.05.21 um 11:34 schrieb Pekka Paalanen:
> On Wed, 12 May 2021 16:04:16 +0300
> Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 02:06:56PM +0200, Werner Sembach wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> In addition to the existing "max bpc", and "Broadcast RGB/output_csc" drm properties I propose 4 new properties:
>>> "preferred pixel encoding", "active color depth", "active color range", and "active pixel encoding"
>>>
>>>
>>> Motivation:
>>>
>>> Current monitors have a variety pixel encodings available: RGB, YCbCr 4:4:4, YCbCr 4:2:2, YCbCr 4:2:0.
>>>
>>> In addition they might be full or limited RGB range and the monitors accept different bit depths.
>>>
>>> Currently the kernel driver for AMD and Intel GPUs automatically configure the color settings automatically with little
>>> to no influence of the user. However there are several real world scenarios where the user might disagree with the
>>> default chosen by the drivers and wants to set his or her own preference.
>>>
>>> Some examples:
>>>
>>> 1. While RGB and YCbCr 4:4:4 in theory carry the same amount of color information, some screens might look better on one
>>> than the other because of bad internal conversion. The driver currently however has a fixed default that is chosen if
>>> available (RGB for Intel and YCbCr 4:4:4 for AMD). The only way to change this currently is by editing and overloading
>>> the edid reported by the monitor to the kernel.
>>>
>>> 2. RGB and YCbCr 4:4:4 need a higher port clock then YCbCr 4:2:0. Some hardware might report that it supports the higher
>>> port clock, but because of bad shielding on the PC, the cable, or the monitor the screen cuts out every few seconds when
>>> RGB or YCbCr 4:4:4 encoding is used, while YCbCr 4:2:0 might just work fine without changing hardware. The drivers
>>> currently however always default to the "best available" option even if it might be broken.
>>>
>>> 3. Some screens natively only supporting 8-bit color, simulate 10-Bit color by rapidly switching between 2 adjacent
>>> colors. They advertise themselves to the kernel as 10-bit monitors but the user might not like the "fake" 10-bit effect
>>> and prefer running at the native 8-bit per color.
>>>
>>> 4. Some screens are falsely classified as full RGB range wile they actually use limited RGB range. This results in
>>> washed out colors in dark and bright scenes. A user override can be helpful to manually fix this issue when it occurs.
>>>
>>> There already exist several requests, discussion, and patches regarding the thematic:
>>>
>>> - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/476
>>>
>>> - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1548
>>>
>>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/7/695
>>>
>>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/11/416
>>>
> ...
>
>>> Adoption:
>>>
>>> A KDE dev wants to implement the settings in the KDE settings GUI:
>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/476#note_912370
>>>
>>> Tuxedo Computers (my employer) wants to implement the settings desktop environment agnostic in Tuxedo Control Center. I
>>> will start work on this in parallel to implementing the new kernel code.  
>> I suspect everyone would be happier to accept new uapi if we had
>> multiple compositors signed up to implement it.
> I think having Weston support for these would be good, but for now it
> won't be much of an UI: just weston.ini to set, and the log to see what
> happened.

Since a first version of the patch set is now feature complete, please let me know if a MR regarding this is started.

Thanks

>
> However, knowing what happened is going to be important for color
> calibration auditing:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/-/issues/467
>
> Yes, please, very much for read-only properties for the feedback part.
> Properties that both userspace and kernel will write are hard to deal
> with in general.
>
> Btw. "max bpc" I can kind of guess that conversion from framebuffer
> format to the wire bpc happens automatically and only as the final
> step, but "Broadcast RGB" is more complicated: is the output from the
> abstract pixel pipeline sent as-is and "Broadcast RGB" is just another
> inforframe bit to the monitor, or does "Broadcast RGB" setting actually
> change what happens in the pixel pipeline *and* set infoframe bits?
>
> My vague recollection is that framebuffer was always assumed to be in
> full range, and then if "Broadcast RGB" was set to limited range, the
> driver would mangle the pixel pipeline to convert from full to limited
> range. This means that it would be impossible to have limited range
> data in a framebuffer, or there might be a double-conversion by
> userspace programming a LUT for limited->full and then the driver
> adding full->limited. I'm also confused how full/limited works when
> framebuffer is in RGB/YCbCr and the monitor wire format is in RGB/YCbCr
> and there may be RGB->YCbCR or YCbCR->RGB conversions going on - or
> maybe even FB YCbCR -> RGB -> DEGAMMA -> CTM -> GAMMA -> YCbCR.
>
> I wish someone drew a picture of the KMS abstract pixel pipeline with
> all the existing KMS properties in it. :-)
>
>
> Thanks,
> pq
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx