[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161107141146.vremdlwdizzejwzd@lukather>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:11:46 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
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 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI mailing list <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 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] drm/sun4i: Handle TV overscan
Hi Sean,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:11:26PM -0600, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > We might not have a GPU in the system, and we might not even have an
> > entire graphic stack on top either, so I don't think fixing at the
> > user-space level is a good option (especially since we already have an
> > overscan property in DRM).
> >
>
> Hi Maxime,
> I took a quick look at the first 2 patches in the series and they look
> good at first glance. I have them in my queue to review more
> carefully.
Yes, the first one is pretty scary.
If it can ease your review, I made a bunch of unittests to test that
code. It's pretty hacky (basically a copy of some kernel structures
and the new logic to parse the command line), but it should test it
with a significant number of cases:
http://code.bulix.org/4lnlk7-107122?raw
It's pretty straightforward to compile, you just have to link against
cmocka.
> Can you explain why you can't fix this by specifying a new mode with
> big porches (as Russell suggested)?
I'll reply to his mail.
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists