linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/exynos: g2d: Add support for old S5Pv210 type

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57447BDA.2000004@math.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 18:05:46 +0200
From:	Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
	Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
	Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Kamil Debski <k.debski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/exynos: g2d: Add support for old S5Pv210 type

Hello Krzysztof,


Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 03:49 PM, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>
>> are you sure that these are the only differences. Because AFAIK there
>> are quite a few more:
>> - DMA submission of commands
>> - blend mode / rounding
>> - solid fill
>> - YCrCb support
>> - and probably more
>>
>> One would need to add least split the command list parser into a v3 and
>> v41 version to accomodate for the differences. In fact userspace/libdrm
>> would need to know which hw type it currently uses, but you currently
>> always return 4.1 in the corresponding ioctl.
> 
> Eh, so probably my patch does not cover fully the support for v3 G2D. I
> looked mostly at the differences between v3 and v4 in the s5p-g2d driver
> itself. However you are right that this might be not sufficient because
> exynos-g2d moved forward and is different than s5p-g2d.
> 
>> Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> The non-DRM s5p-g2d driver supports two versions of G2D: v3.0 on
>>> S5Pv210 and v4.x on Exynos 4x12 (or newer). The driver for 3.0 device
>>> version is doing two things differently:
>>> 1. Before starting the render process, it invalidates caches (pattern,
>>>    source buffer and mask buffer). Cache control is not present on v4.x
>>>    device.
>>> 2. Scalling is done through StretchEn command (in BITBLT_COMMAND_REG
>>>    register) instead of SRC_SCALE_CTRL_REG as in v4.x. However the
>>>    exynos_drm_g2d driver does not implement the scalling so this
>>>    difference can be eliminated.
>> Huh? Where did you get this from? Scaling works with the DRM driver.
> 
> I was looking for the usage of scaling reg (as there is no scaling
> command). How the scaling is implemented then?
Like you said above the drivers work completly different. The DRM one
receives a command list that is constructed by userspace (libdrm
mostly), copies it to a contiguous buffer and passes the memory address
of that buffer to the engine which then works on it. Of course
everything is slightly more complex.

You don't see any reference to scaling in the driver because the scaling
regs don't need any kind of specific validation.

If you want to know how the command list is constructed, the best way is
to look into libdrm. The Exynos specific tests actually cover scaling.


With best wishes,
Tobias


> Thanks for feedback!
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>