mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ilija Hadzic <ihadzic@research.bell-labs.com>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: Byron Stanoszek <gandalf@winds.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: Standalone DRM application
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:42:46 -0500 (CDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1304180853530.9152@umail> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANq1E4RGD+8QNAin+A-MZWAiqhLLvH+zG+gfhi7Vd6bYOuV75A@mail.gmail.com>



On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, David Herrmann wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Byron Stanoszek <gandalf@winds.org> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I'm developing a small application that uses libdrm (DRM ioctls) to change
>> the
>> resolution of a single graphics display and show a framebuffer. I've run
>> into
>> two problems with this implementation that I'm hoping you can address.
>>
>>
>> 1. Each application is its own process, which is designed to control 1
>> graphics
>> display. This is unlike X, for instance, which could be configured to grab
>> all
>> of the displays in the system at once.
>>
>> Depending on our stackup, there can be as many as 4 displays connected to a
>> single graphics card. One process could open /dev/dri/card0 and call
>> drmModeSetCrtc() to initialize one of its displays to the requested
>> resolution.
>> However, whenever a second process calls drmModeSetCrtc() to control a
>> second
>> display on the same card, it gets -EPERM back from the ioctl.
>>
>> I've traced this down to the following line in
>> linux/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c:
>>
>> DRM_IOCTL_DEF(DRM_IOCTL_MODE_SETCRTC, drm_mode_setcrtc,
>> DRM_MASTER|DRM_CONTROL_ALLOW|DRM_UNLOCKED),
>>
>> If I remove the DRM_MASTER flag, then my application behaves correctly, and
>> 4
>> separate processes can then control each individual display on the card
>> without
>> issue.
>>
>> My question is, is there any real benefit to restricting drm_mode_setcrtc()
>> with DRM_MASTER, or can we lose this flag in order to support
>> one-process-per-
>> display programs like the above?
>
> Only one open-file can be DRM-Master. And only DRM-Master is allowed
> to perform mode-setting. This is to prevent render-clients (like
> OpenGL clients) to perform mode-setting, which should be restricted to
> the compositor/...
>
> In your scenario, you should share a single open-file between the
> processes by passing the FDs to each. Or do all of that in a single
> process. There is no way to split CRTCs/connectors between different
> nodes or have multiple DRM-Masters on a single node at once. (There is
> work going on to allow this, but it will take a while...)
>

If running a custom-patched kernel is acceptable (i.e. custom-built, 
embedded system or the like), then a set of patches that I sent about a 
year ago [1] will probably do the job. The problem is that these patches 
are apparently not going upstream because there was little interest and 
there were a couple of arguments against them [2]. Originally, it's the 
work that Dave Airlie started but abandoned. I finished it off and tried 
to have it included upstream but it didn't happen.

I have an application that is similar to what is described here and I am 
using these patches to make it work. Essentially, what you do is call a 
small userspace utility (also included with the patches for libdrm) and 
specify which CRTCs/encoders/connectors/planes do you want included in the 
node and you get a new /dev/dri/render<N> node that your application can 
use and be the master on these resources only. Then for the next node you 
call the utility again and specify a new set of display resources and then 
you run the other application on the top of that node.

The patches that are on the mailing list archive [1] are now a year old, 
but I have a rebased version for newer kernels, which I can send to 
whoever is interested in having them (I am just hesitating to pollute the 
mailing list with patches to which the maintainers have already said 
"no").

[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-April/021326.html
[2] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-September/028348.html

-- Ilija

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-18 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-17 21:05 Byron Stanoszek
2013-04-18 13:18 ` David Herrmann
2013-04-18 14:42   ` Ilija Hadzic [this message]
2013-04-19 14:39   ` Byron Stanoszek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.GSO.4.64.1304180853530.9152@umail \
    --to=ihadzic@research.bell-labs.com \
    --cc=dh.herrmann@gmail.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gandalf@winds.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®