linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/vc4: vec: Add support for PAL-60

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:34:19 +0200
From:   maxime@...no.tech
To:     kfyatek+publicgit@...il.com
Cc:     Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        Dom Cobley <dom@...pberrypi.com>, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/vc4: vec: Add support for PAL-60

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:57:04PM +0200, Mateusz Kwiatkowski wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> W dniu 18.10.2022 o 10:31, Maxime Ripard pisze:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 09:46:49PM +0200, Mateusz Kwiatkowski wrote:
> >> @@ -308,14 +324,15 @@ static const struct vc4_vec_tv_mode vc4_vec_tv_modes[] = {
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  static inline const struct vc4_vec_tv_mode *
> >> -vc4_vec_tv_mode_lookup(unsigned int mode)
> >> +vc4_vec_tv_mode_lookup(unsigned int mode, u16 htotal)
> >>  {
> >>  	unsigned int i;
> >>  
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vc4_vec_tv_modes); i++) {
> >>  		const struct vc4_vec_tv_mode *tv_mode = &vc4_vec_tv_modes[i];
> >>  
> >> -		if (tv_mode->mode == mode)
> >> +		if (tv_mode->mode == mode &&
> >> +		    tv_mode->expected_htotal == htotal)
> >>  			return tv_mode;
> >
> > Is there any reason we're not using the refresh rate to filter this? It
> > seems more natural to me.
> 
> Let me give you an example first.
> 
> There are actually two ways to configure PAL-60-ish mode on VC4/VEC:
> 
> a) Modeline 13.5 720 734 798 858 480 487 493 525 Interlace, standard registers
>    set to VEC_CONFIG0_PAL_M_STD, custom frequency enabled and set to 0x2a098acb;
>    Setting the standard registers to "PAL-M" puts the VEC in true 59.94 Hz mode,
>    so the video timings are identical as for NTSC (or PAL-M), and the custom
>    frequency makes the color subcarrier compatible with regular PAL receivers.
>    This is the "true" PAL-60, thanks to the true System M timings.

That's the one I would expect, and I assume we could just do that by
selecting the 480i mode + PAL TV Mode property, right?

> a) Modeline 13.5 720 740 804 864 480 486 492 525 Interlace, standards registers
>    set to VEC_CONFIG0_PAL with standard frequency; This is a "fake" PAL-60 mode,
>    the refresh rate is actually ~59.524 Hz. Most "NTSC" sets will be able to
>    sync with this mode no problem, but the VEC is actually operating in its
>    50 Hz mode - it's just the "premature" vertical sync signal causes it to
>    output something that is similar to the 525-line system, however strictly
>    speaking non-standard due to lower horizontal sync frequency.

But it's not really clear to me why we should support both.

> This comes down to the fact that:
> 
> - When VEC's standard registers are set to VEC_CONFIG0_NTSC_STD or
>   VEC_CONFIG0_PAL_M_STD, it operates in the "CCIR System M" mode, expects htotal
>   to be exactly 858 pixels (and it will generate horizontal sync pulse every 858
>   pixels on its own regardless of what comes out of the PV - so there will be
>   garbage on screen if you set it to anything else), and vtotal to be 525 lines.
>   It will not accept vtotal that's any higher (it will generate its own vertical
>   sync as demanded by System M if not triggered by the PV), but it can be lower
>   - resulting in modes that are non-standard, but otherwise valid.
> 
> - Likewise, when the registers are set to VEC_CONFIG0_PAL_BDGHI_STD,
>   VEC_CONFIG0_PAL_N_STD or VEC_CONFIG0_SECAM_STD (SECAM is a bit special, but
>   that's irrelevant here), it operates in the "CCIR System B/D/G/H/I/N" mode,
>   and likewise, expects htotal to be exactly 864 pixels (garbage on screen
>   otherwise), vtotal limit is 625 lines, etc.
> 
> Checking for the refresh rate would only work for standard-compliant modes and
> have the potential of completely breaking on any custom modes. Conversely,
> checking for htotal aligns perfectly with the limitations of the hardware, and
> allows the user to set any modeline that the hardware is able to output with
> any level of sanity.

OK

Thanks!
Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)