Message-ID: <20161103095444.GX1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:54:45 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] drm/sun4i: Handle TV overscan

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:01:06AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:42:34AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:03:49PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > The first one is that this overscanning should be reported by the
> > > connector I guess? but this is really TV specific, so we need one way
> > > to let the user tell how the image is displayed on its side, and we
> > > cannot really autodetect it, and this needs to be done at runtime so
> > > that we can present some shiny interface to let it select which
> > > overscan ratio works for him/her.
> > 
> > See xbmc... they go through a nice shiny setup which includes adjusting
> > the visible area.  From what I remember, it has pointers on each corner
> > which you can adjust to be just visible on the screen, so xbmc knows
> > how much overscan there is, and xbmc itself reduces down to the user
> > set size.

I was replying to your comment "so we need one way to let the user tell
how the image is displayed".

> Yes. And that is an XBMC only solution, that doesn't work with the
> fbdev emulation and is probably doing an additional composition to
> scale down and center their frames through OpenGL.

Well, it will have to be doing a scaling step anyway.  If the video
frame is a different size to the active area, scaling is required
no matter what.  A 576p SD image needs to be scaled up, and a 1080p
image would need to be scaled down for a 1080p overscanned display
with a reduced active area to counter the overscanning - no matter
how you do it.

For graphics, userspace could add mode(s) with increased porches and
reduced active area itself to achieve an underscanned display on a
timing which the display device always overscans - there's no need to
do that in the kernel, all the APIs are there to be able to do it
already.

That means your framebuffer will be smaller, but that's the case
anyway.

> > > The second one is that we still need to expose the reduced modes to
> > > userspace, and not only the displayed size, so that the applications
> > > know what they must draw on. But I guess this could be adjusted by the
> > > core too.
> > > 
> > > In order to work consistently, I think all planes should be adjusted
> > > that way, so that relative coordinates are from the primary plane
> > > origin, and not the display origin. But that could be adjusted too by
> > > the core I guess.
> > 
> > I'm not sure about that - we want the graphics to be visible, but that
> > may not be appropriate for an video overlay frame.  It's quite common
> > for (eg) broadcast video to contain dead pixels or other artifacts on
> > the right hand side, and the broadcast video expects overscan to be
> > present.
> >
> > I know this because I have run my TV with overscan disabled, even for
> > broadcast TV.
> 
> I know, but on this particular hardware, composite really is just
> another video output. There's not even a TV receiver in it, so I don't
> think we have to worry about it.

Whether or not there's a TV receiver is irrelevant - if you can decode
broadcast video, then you run into the problem.  For example, if you
plug in a USB DVB stick, stream it across the network, etc.

Remember, you're proposing a generic solution, so making arguments
about things that are not possible with your specific hardware isn't
really that relevant to a generic solution.

So, I may want my graphics to appear on an overscanned display such
that I can see the borders, but I may want the overlaid video to use
the full active area (including overscan) to hide some of the broadcast
mess at the edges of the screen.

> > Yea, that's quite sad, "analog" has become a dirty word, but really
> > this has nothing to do with "analog" at all - there are LCD TVs (and
> > some monitors) out there which take HDMI signals but refuse to
> > disable overscan no matter what you do to them if you provide them
> > with a "broadcast"  mode - so the analog excuse is very poor.
> 
> I'd agree with you, but I was also told to not turn that into a
> generic code and deal with that in my driver.

I guess whoever told you that was wrong.  I used to have a cheap TV
here which took HDMI, and always overscans broadcast modes, and
underscans PC modes.  No amount of fiddling with various settings
(either in the TV or AVI frames) changes that.

I've run into that with a _monitor_ that Andrew Hutton has, which has
a HDMI input - exactly the same thing - 1080p, 720p etc are all
unconditionally overscanned, 1024x768 etc are all unconditionally
underscanned and there's nothing that can be done to change it.

The problem is that TVs are at liberty to have this behaviour, so
the overscaned problem is always going to be there, and each driver
should not be dealing with it in their own specific ways.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists