Proposal for a low-level Linux display framework

Tomi Valkeinen tomi.valkeinen at ti.com
Thu Sep 15 12:07:05 UTC 2011


Hi,

I am the author of OMAP display driver, and while developing it I've
often felt that there's something missing in Linux's display area. I've
been planning to write a post about this for a few years already, but I
never got to it. So here goes at last!

---

First I want to (try to) describe shortly what we have on OMAP, to give
a bit of a background for my point of view, and to have an example HW.

The display subsystem (DSS) hardware on OMAP handles only showing pixels
on a display, so it doesn't contain anything that produces pixels like
3D stuff or accelerated copying. All it does is fetch pixels from SDRAM,
possibly do some modifications for them (color format conversions etc),
and output them to a display.

The hardware has multiple overlays, which are like hardware windows.
They fetch pixels from SDRAM, and output them in a certain area on the
display (possibly with scaling). Multiple overlays can be composited
into one output.

So we may have something like this, when all overlays read pixels from
separate areas in the memory, and all overlays are on LCD display:

 .-----.         .------.           .------.
 | mem |-------->| ovl0 |-----.---->| LCD  |
 '-----'         '------'     |     '------'
 .-----.         .------.     |
 | mem |-------->| ovl1 |-----|
 '-----'         '------'     |
 .-----.         .------.     |     .------.
 | mem |-------->| ovl2 |-----'     |  TV  |
 '-----'         '------'           '------'

The LCD display can be rather simple one, like a standard monitor or a
simple panel directly connected to parallel RGB output, or a more
complex one. A complex panel needs something else than just
turn-it-on-and-go. This may involve sending and receiving messages
between OMAP and the panel, but more generally, there's need to have
custom code that handles the particular panel. And the complex panel is
not necessarily a panel at all, it may be a buffer chip between OMAP and
the actual panel.

The software side can be divided into three parts: the lower level
omapdss driver, the lower level panel drivers, and higher level drivers
like omapfb, v4l2 and omapdrm.

The omapdss driver handles the OMAP DSS hardware, and offers a kernel
internal API which the higher level drivers use. The omapdss does not
know anything about fb or drm, it just offers core display services.

The panel drivers handle particular panels/chips. The panel driver may
be very simple in case of a conventional display, basically doing pretty
much nothing, or bigger piece of code, handling communication with the
panel.

The higher level drivers handle buffers and tell omapdss things like
where to find the pixels, what size the overlays should be, and use the
omapdss API to turn displays on/off, etc.

---

There are two things that I'm proposing to improve the Linux display
support:

First, there should be a bunch of common video structs and helpers that
are independent of any higher level framework. Things like video
timings, mode databases, and EDID seem to be implemented multiple times
in the kernel. But there shouldn't be anything in those things that
depend on any particular display framework, so they could be implemented
just once and all the frameworks could use them.

Second, I think there could be use for a common low level display
framework. Currently the lower level code (display HW handling, etc.)
and higher level code (buffer management, policies, etc) seem to be
usually tied together, like the fb framework or the drm. Granted, the
frameworks do not force that, and for OMAP we indeed have omapfb and
omapdrm using the lower level omapdss. But I don't see that it's
anything OMAP specific as such.

I think the lower level framework could have components something like
this (the naming is OMAP oriented, of course):

overlay - a hardware "window", gets pixels from memory, possibly does
format conversions, scaling, etc.

overlay compositor - composes multiple overlays into one output,
possibly doing things like translucency.

output - gets the pixels from overlay compositor, and sends them out
according to particular video timings when using conventional video
interface, or via any other mean when using non-conventional video buses
like DSI command mode.

display - handles an external display. For conventional displays this
wouldn't do much, but for complex ones it does whatever needed by that
particular display.

This is something similar to what DRM has, I believe. The biggest
difference is that the display can be a full blown driver for a complex
piece of HW.

This kind of low level framework would be good for two purposes: 1) I
think it's a good division generally, having the low level HW driver
separate from the higher level buffer/policy management and 2) fb, drm,
v4l2 or any possible future framework could all use the same low level
framework.

---

Now, I'm quite sure the above framework could work quite well with any
OMAP like hardware, with unified memory (i.e. the video buffers are in
SDRAM) and 3D chips and similar components are separate. But what I'm
not sure is how desktop world's gfx cards change things. Most probably
all the above components can be found from there also in some form, but
are there some interdependencies between 3D/buffer management/something
else and the video output side?

This was a very rough and quite short proposal, but I'm happy to improve
and extend it if it's not totally shot down.

 Tomi





More information about the linaro-dev mailing list