[PATCH v4 01/10] drm/connector: let drivers declare infoframes as unsupported

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:55:06PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > As we will be getting more and more features, some of the InfoFrames
> > > or data packets will be 'good to have, but not required'.
> > 
> > And drivers would be free to ignore those.
> > 
> > > > So, no, sorry. That's still a no for me. Please stop sending that patch
> > > 
> > > Oops :-)
> > > 
> > > > unless we have a discussion about it and you convince me that it's
> > > > actually something that we'd need.
> > > 
> > > My main concern is that the drivers should not opt-out of the features.
> > > E.g. if we start supporting ISRC packets or MPEG or NTSC VBI InfoFrames
> > > (yes, stupid examples), it should not be required to go through all the
> > > drivers, making sure that they disable those. Instead the DRM framework
> > > should be able to make decisions like:
> > > 
> > > - The driver supports SPD and the VSDB defines SPD, enable this
> > >   InfoFrame (BTW, this needs to be done anyway, we should not be sending
> > >   SPD if it's not defined in VSDB, if I read it correctly).
> > > 
> > > - The driver hints that the pixel data has only 10 meaninful bits of
> > >   data per component (e.g. out of 12 for DeepColor 36), the Sink has
> > >   HF-VSDB, send HF-VSIF.
> > > 
> > > - The driver has enabled 3D stereo mode, but it doesn't declare support
> > >   for HF-VSIF. Send only H14b-VSIF.
> > > 
> > > Similarly (no, I don't have these on my TODO list, these are just
> > > examples):
> > > - The driver defines support for NTSC VBI, register a VBI device.
> > > 
> > > - The driver defines support for ISRC packets, register ISRC-related
> > >   properties.
> > > 
> > > - The driver defines support for MPEG Source InfoFrame, provide a way
> > >   for media players to report frame type and bit rate.
> > > 
> > > - The driver provides limited support for Extended HDR DM InfoFrames,
> > >   select the correct frame type according to driver capabilities.
> > > 
> > > Without the 'supported' information we should change atomic_check()
> > > functions to set infoframe->set to false for all unsupported InfoFrames
> > > _and_ go through all the drivers again each time we add support for a
> > > feature (e.g. after adding HF-VSIF support).
> > 
> > From what you described here, I think we share a similar goal and have
> > somewhat similar concerns (thanks, btw, it wasn't obvious to me before),
> > we just disagree on the trade-offs and ideal solution :)
> > 
> > I agree that we need to sanity check the drivers, and I don't want to go
> > back to the situation we had before where drivers could just ignore
> > infoframes and take the easy way out.
> > 
> > It should be hard, and easy to catch during review.
> > 
> > I don't think bitflag are a solution because, to me, it kind of fails
> > both.
> > 
> > What if, just like the debugfs discussion, we split write_infoframe into
> > write_avi_infoframe (mandatory), write_spd_infoframe (optional),
> > write_audio_infoframe (checked by drm_connector_hdmi_audio_init?) and
> > write_hdr_infoframe (checked in drmm_connector_hdmi_init if max_bpc > 8)
> > 
> > How does that sound?
> 
> I'd say, I really like the single function to be called for writing the
> infoframes. It makes it much harder for drivers to misbehave or to skip
> something.

From a driver PoV, I believe we should still have that single function
indeed. It would be drm_atomic_helper_connector_hdmi_update_infoframes's
job to fan out and call the multiple callbacks, not the drivers.

Maxime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rockchip/attachments/20251003/12bd1a81/attachment.sig>