| Message ID | 1499848144-8456-2-git-send-email-ramalingam.c@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:58:45PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: > DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive > HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. > > And also there are Read only status bits for > 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel > 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector > > Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ > include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > #include <drm/drm_connector.h> > #include <drm/drm_edid.h> > #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> > +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> > > #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" > #include "drm_internal.h" > @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { > }; > DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) > > +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, > + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, > + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, > + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, > + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, > + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, > + "HDCP work in progress" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, > + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, > + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, > + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" }, Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other stuff? This also doesn't seem to do the lockdown mode to force hdcp mode. And afair it also doesn't match what CrOS currently uses, which means we don't have userspace for this. I think the best approach would be if we simply try to upstream _exactly_ the property CrOS currently uses (not even bothering with type 0 vs type 1 if that's not required), since that is the currently only open source userspace that asks for this. Going with a much more complicated or different interface just because only risks a massive discussion and subsequent long delays. -Daniel > +}; > +DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_hdcp_name, drm_hdcp_enum_list) > + > /** > * drm_display_info_set_bus_formats - set the supported bus formats > * @info: display info to store bus formats in > @@ -789,6 +812,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) > return -ENOMEM; > dev->mode_config.link_status_property = prop; > > + prop = drm_property_create_bitmask(dev, 0, "hdcp", drm_hdcp_enum_list, > + ARRAY_SIZE(drm_hdcp_enum_list), > + DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS); > + if (!prop) > + return -ENOMEM; > + dev->mode_config.hdcp_property = prop; > + > return 0; > } > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..7cebf0f > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > +/* > + * Copyright (c) 2017 Intel Corporation > + * > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its > + * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that > + * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright > + * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and > + * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or > + * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, > + * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations > + * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as > + * is" without express or implied warranty. > + * > + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, > + * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO > + * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR > + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, > + * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER > + * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE > + * OF THIS SOFTWARE. > + */ > + > +/* > + * Header for HDCP specific data > + */ > + > +#ifndef __DRM_HDCP_H__ > +#define __DRM_HDCP_H__ > + > +/** > + * HDCP property related information > + */ > +/* RW: HDCP Encryption Requests and Status bits */ > +#define DRM_HDCP_ENABLE BIT(0) > +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 BIT(4) > +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 BIT(5) > + > +/* RO: HDCP Version supported on Platform + panel */ > +#define DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED BIT(12) > +#define DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED BIT(13) > + > +/* RO: Status of the requested operations */ > +#define DRM_HDCP_WIP BIT(20) > +#define DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED BIT(21) > + > +/* RO: Error Status From HDCP sink */ > +#define DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED BIT(22) > +#define DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED BIT(23) > + > +#define DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS (DRM_HDCP_ENABLE | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 \ > + | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 | \ > + DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED | \ > + DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED | DRM_HDCP_WIP | \ > + DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED | \ > + DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED | \ > + DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) > + > +#endif /* __DRM_HDCP_H__ */ > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > index 4298171..0c5bb90 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ struct drm_mode_config { > */ > struct drm_property *link_status_property; > /** > + * @hdcp_property: Default connector property for HDCP > + * of a connector > + */ > + struct drm_property *hdcp_property; > + /** > * @plane_type_property: Default plane property to differentiate > * CURSOR, PRIMARY and OVERLAY legacy uses of planes. > */ > -- > 2.7.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Daniel, Thank you for reviewing the patch in short time. My views are below. On Wednesday 12 July 2017 03:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:58:45PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: >> DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive >> HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. >> >> And also there are Read only status bits for >> 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel >> 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector >> >> Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ >> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >> index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ >> #include <drm/drm_connector.h> >> #include <drm/drm_edid.h> >> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> >> +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> >> >> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" >> #include "drm_internal.h" >> @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { >> }; >> DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) >> >> +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, >> + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, >> + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, >> + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, >> + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, >> + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, >> + "HDCP work in progress" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, >> + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, >> + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, >> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, >> + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" }, > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other > stuff? enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with kobj-uevent for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 configuration. And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. But to inform whether both HDCP source and Sink support HDCP1.4/2.2/None I wanted to add the capability bits. These capability flags could be avoided if the presence of the drm_hdcp_property on connector, assures the corresponding HDCP version support on both HDCP src and sink. But for that we need a way to detach/alter the DRM_property of connector based on HDCP sink's hdcp version capability. Need to explore on that direction if that is allowed. Once HDCP protection is enabled link protection might break for many reasons including hot unplug. So Other Error flags are just to give more information to UMD on that scenario. But we can avoid them by setting the state as HDCP_DISABLE and notifying the UMD through Kobj-uevent for HDCP state change. But one concern remains un-addressed that is compliance requirement will force us to reauthenticate in case of failures in authentication or on HDCP enabled link. In that scenario UMD has to be in formed that reauth is in progress. If UMD wants the port to be reenabled it has to wait for the completion of reauth else it has to place request for disabling the HDCP on port. We might want to add a enum value as HDCP_DISABLE_REAUTH. What is your opinion on this? > > This also doesn't seem to do the lockdown mode to force hdcp mode. And > afair it also doesn't match what CrOS currently uses, which means we don't > have userspace for this. AFAIK, Either way we don't have userspace for HDCP2.2 at present, as CrOS interface is designed for HDCP1.4(Need to cross check this with sean). But I will check with seanpaul if there is any plan for extending it for HDCP2.2 too. If so we could enable CrOS as consumer for HDCP2.2 against planned open source consumer from my side. As discussed in cover letter I am starting on a UMD library which will be open sourced as a HDCP1.4 and 2.2 service provider for chromebox stack and Android. > > I think the best approach would be if we simply try to upstream _exactly_ > the property CrOS currently uses (not even bothering with type 0 vs type 1 > if that's not required), since that is the currently only open source > userspace that asks for this. At first stage, as we are developing the HDCP2.2 support at DRM at first than HDCP1.4, we need to extend CrOS property for HDCP2.2 and then upstream. That will be the fruitful solution for us. --Ram > Going with a much more complicated or > different interface just because only risks a massive discussion and > subsequent long delays. > -Daniel > >> +}; >> +DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_hdcp_name, drm_hdcp_enum_list) >> + >> /** >> * drm_display_info_set_bus_formats - set the supported bus formats >> * @info: display info to store bus formats in >> @@ -789,6 +812,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) >> return -ENOMEM; >> dev->mode_config.link_status_property = prop; >> >> + prop = drm_property_create_bitmask(dev, 0, "hdcp", drm_hdcp_enum_list, >> + ARRAY_SIZE(drm_hdcp_enum_list), >> + DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS); >> + if (!prop) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + dev->mode_config.hdcp_property = prop; >> + >> return 0; >> } >> >> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..7cebf0f >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ >> +/* >> + * Copyright (c) 2017 Intel Corporation >> + * >> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its >> + * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that >> + * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright >> + * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and >> + * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or >> + * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, >> + * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations >> + * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as >> + * is" without express or implied warranty. >> + * >> + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, >> + * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO >> + * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR >> + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, >> + * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER >> + * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE >> + * OF THIS SOFTWARE. >> + */ >> + >> +/* >> + * Header for HDCP specific data >> + */ >> + >> +#ifndef __DRM_HDCP_H__ >> +#define __DRM_HDCP_H__ >> + >> +/** >> + * HDCP property related information >> + */ >> +/* RW: HDCP Encryption Requests and Status bits */ >> +#define DRM_HDCP_ENABLE BIT(0) >> +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 BIT(4) >> +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 BIT(5) >> + >> +/* RO: HDCP Version supported on Platform + panel */ >> +#define DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED BIT(12) >> +#define DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED BIT(13) >> + >> +/* RO: Status of the requested operations */ >> +#define DRM_HDCP_WIP BIT(20) >> +#define DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED BIT(21) >> + >> +/* RO: Error Status From HDCP sink */ >> +#define DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED BIT(22) >> +#define DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED BIT(23) >> + >> +#define DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS (DRM_HDCP_ENABLE | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 \ >> + | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 | \ >> + DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED | \ >> + DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED | DRM_HDCP_WIP | \ >> + DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED | \ >> + DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED | \ >> + DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) >> + >> +#endif /* __DRM_HDCP_H__ */ >> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >> index 4298171..0c5bb90 100644 >> --- a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >> +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >> @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ struct drm_mode_config { >> */ >> struct drm_property *link_status_property; >> /** >> + * @hdcp_property: Default connector property for HDCP >> + * of a connector >> + */ >> + struct drm_property *hdcp_property; >> + /** >> * @plane_type_property: Default plane property to differentiate >> * CURSOR, PRIMARY and OVERLAY legacy uses of planes. >> */ >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Intel-gfx mailing list >> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:26:02PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: > Daniel, > > Thank you for reviewing the patch in short time. My views are below. > > > On Wednesday 12 July 2017 03:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:58:45PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: > > > DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive > > > HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. > > > > > > And also there are Read only status bits for > > > 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel > > > 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector Hi Ram, Thank you for posting this set! I'll do some code review in a separate pass. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ > > > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > > > index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > > > #include <drm/drm_connector.h> > > > #include <drm/drm_edid.h> > > > #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> > > > +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> > > > #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" > > > #include "drm_internal.h" > > > @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { > > > }; > > > DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) > > > +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, > > > + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, > > > + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, > > > + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, > > > + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, > > > + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, > > > + "HDCP work in progress" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, > > > + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, > > > + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, > > > + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, > > > + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" }, > > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp > > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if > > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other > > stuff? > enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with > kobj-uevent > for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 > configuration. > > And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this is too contentious. Note that I've tried to use "content protection" instead of HDCP. My original thinking was that since HDCP 1.x was broken, there was probably going to be something else coming along. It's probably best to continue to keep the means of protection vague, since you never know what will happen with HDCP 2.2 and what will come after it. > > But to inform whether both HDCP source and Sink support HDCP1.4/2.2/None I > wanted to add > the capability bits. These capability flags could be avoided if the presence > of the drm_hdcp_property > on connector, assures the corresponding HDCP version support on both HDCP > src and sink. > But for that we need a way to detach/alter the DRM_property of connector > based on HDCP > sink's hdcp version capability. Need to explore on that direction if that is > allowed. Meh, just change the content protection type to UNSUPPORTED or whatever. > > Once HDCP protection is enabled link protection might break for many reasons > including hot unplug. So Other Error > flags are just to give more information to UMD on that scenario. But we can > avoid them by setting the state > as HDCP_DISABLE and notifying the UMD through Kobj-uevent for HDCP state > change. I can't think of a scenario where this info is worth exposing to userspace. We can just log failures for debugging purposes and we'll be fine. > > But one concern remains un-addressed that is compliance requirement will > force us to reauthenticate > in case of failures in authentication or on HDCP enabled link. In that > scenario UMD has to be in formed that > reauth is in progress. If UMD wants the port to be reenabled it has to wait > for the completion of reauth else > it has to place request for disabling the HDCP on port. We might want to add > a enum value as HDCP_DISABLE_REAUTH. > What is your opinion on this? Let's worry about that if it actually becomes a problem. I don't anticipate needing such fine grained controls. > > > > This also doesn't seem to do the lockdown mode to force hdcp mode. And > > afair it also doesn't match what CrOS currently uses, which means we don't > > have userspace for this. > AFAIK, Either way we don't have userspace for HDCP2.2 at present, as CrOS > interface is designed for > HDCP1.4(Need to cross check this with sean). But I will check with seanpaul > if there is any plan for extending it for HDCP2.2 too. > If so we could enable CrOS as consumer for HDCP2.2 against planned open > source consumer from my side. > > As discussed in cover letter I am starting on a UMD library > which will be open sourced as a HDCP1.4 and 2.2 service provider for > chromebox stack and Android. I'm not sure this really justifies its own library. Or at least, I hope it doesn't. All userspace should have to do is 3 things: 1- Tell kernel it wants content protection 2- Determine what method is being used for content protection 3- Determine if the display is protected at any given time Chrome, Android (well, drm_hwc) already understand drm properties, so I'm not sure how they would benefit from an additional layer of misdirection. Sean > > > > > I think the best approach would be if we simply try to upstream _exactly_ > > the property CrOS currently uses (not even bothering with type 0 vs type 1 > > if that's not required), since that is the currently only open source > > userspace that asks for this. > At first stage, as we are developing the HDCP2.2 support at DRM at first > than HDCP1.4, > we need to extend CrOS property for HDCP2.2 and then upstream. That will be > the fruitful solution for us. > > --Ram > > Going with a much more complicated or > > different interface just because only risks a massive discussion and > > subsequent long delays. > > -Daniel > > > > > +}; > > > +DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_hdcp_name, drm_hdcp_enum_list) > > > + > > > /** > > > * drm_display_info_set_bus_formats - set the supported bus formats > > > * @info: display info to store bus formats in > > > @@ -789,6 +812,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > dev->mode_config.link_status_property = prop; > > > + prop = drm_property_create_bitmask(dev, 0, "hdcp", drm_hdcp_enum_list, > > > + ARRAY_SIZE(drm_hdcp_enum_list), > > > + DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS); > > > + if (!prop) > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > + dev->mode_config.hdcp_property = prop; > > > + > > > return 0; > > > } > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..7cebf0f > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * Copyright (c) 2017 Intel Corporation > > > + * > > > + * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its > > > + * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that > > > + * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright > > > + * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and > > > + * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or > > > + * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, > > > + * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations > > > + * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as > > > + * is" without express or implied warranty. > > > + * > > > + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, > > > + * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO > > > + * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR > > > + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, > > > + * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER > > > + * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE > > > + * OF THIS SOFTWARE. > > > + */ > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Header for HDCP specific data > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#ifndef __DRM_HDCP_H__ > > > +#define __DRM_HDCP_H__ > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * HDCP property related information > > > + */ > > > +/* RW: HDCP Encryption Requests and Status bits */ > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_ENABLE BIT(0) > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 BIT(4) > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 BIT(5) > > > + > > > +/* RO: HDCP Version supported on Platform + panel */ > > > +#define DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED BIT(12) > > > +#define DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED BIT(13) > > > + > > > +/* RO: Status of the requested operations */ > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_WIP BIT(20) > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED BIT(21) > > > + > > > +/* RO: Error Status From HDCP sink */ > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED BIT(22) > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED BIT(23) > > > + > > > +#define DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS (DRM_HDCP_ENABLE | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 \ > > > + | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 | \ > > > + DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED | \ > > > + DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED | DRM_HDCP_WIP | \ > > > + DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED | \ > > > + DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED | \ > > > + DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) > > > + > > > +#endif /* __DRM_HDCP_H__ */ > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > > > index 4298171..0c5bb90 100644 > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h > > > @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ struct drm_mode_config { > > > */ > > > struct drm_property *link_status_property; > > > /** > > > + * @hdcp_property: Default connector property for HDCP > > > + * of a connector > > > + */ > > > + struct drm_property *hdcp_property; > > > + /** > > > * @plane_type_property: Default plane property to differentiate > > > * CURSOR, PRIMARY and OVERLAY legacy uses of planes. > > > */ > > > -- > > > 2.7.4 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >> > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >> > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >> > stuff? >> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >> kobj-uevent >> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >> configuration. >> >> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. > > I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this > is too contentious. I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. -Daniel
On Thursday 13 July 2017 12:40 AM, Sean Paul wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:26:02PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> Thank you for reviewing the patch in short time. My views are below. >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 July 2017 03:24 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:58:45PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: >>>> DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive >>>> HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. >>>> >>>> And also there are Read only status bits for >>>> 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel >>>> 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector > Hi Ram, > Thank you for posting this set! I'll do some code review in a separate > pass. Sean, Thank you for reviewing the code. > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >>>> index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c >>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ >>>> #include <drm/drm_connector.h> >>>> #include <drm/drm_edid.h> >>>> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> >>>> +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> >>>> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" >>>> #include "drm_internal.h" >>>> @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { >>>> }; >>>> DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) >>>> +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, >>>> + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP work in progress" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, >>>> + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, >>>> + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" }, >>> Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >>> works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >>> needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >>> stuff? >> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >> kobj-uevent >> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >> configuration. >> >> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. > I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this > is too contentious. Nice. So we could consider that we both need interface for HDCP1.4 and also HDCP2.2 > > Note that I've tried to use "content protection" instead of HDCP. My original > thinking was that since HDCP 1.x was broken, there was probably going to be > something else coming along. It's probably best to continue to keep the means of > protection vague, since you never know what will happen with HDCP 2.2 and what > will come after it. Sure that will help in long run. Even I will name it as CP instead of HDCP > > >> But to inform whether both HDCP source and Sink support HDCP1.4/2.2/None I >> wanted to add >> the capability bits. These capability flags could be avoided if the presence >> of the drm_hdcp_property >> on connector, assures the corresponding HDCP version support on both HDCP >> src and sink. >> But for that we need a way to detach/alter the DRM_property of connector >> based on HDCP >> sink's hdcp version capability. Need to explore on that direction if that is >> allowed. > Meh, just change the content protection type to UNSUPPORTED or whatever. Just thinking: In that case UNSUPPORTED will stand for not supporting any common HDCP ver on the combination of HDCP src and sink? In that case if HDCP src and sink combo doesn't support one of V1.4 and V2.2, then we wont set the property state to UNSUPPORTED and We will return error code -EINVAL for the request (atomic ioctl) of not supported version. Does it sound good enough? > >> Once HDCP protection is enabled link protection might break for many reasons >> including hot unplug. So Other Error >> flags are just to give more information to UMD on that scenario. But we can >> avoid them by setting the state >> as HDCP_DISABLE and notifying the UMD through Kobj-uevent for HDCP state >> change. > I can't think of a scenario where this info is worth exposing to userspace. We > can just log failures for debugging purposes and we'll be fine. Agreed. I will remove those error bits. > >> But one concern remains un-addressed that is compliance requirement will >> force us to reauthenticate >> in case of failures in authentication or on HDCP enabled link. In that >> scenario UMD has to be in formed that >> reauth is in progress. If UMD wants the port to be reenabled it has to wait >> for the completion of reauth else >> it has to place request for disabling the HDCP on port. We might want to add >> a enum value as HDCP_DISABLE_REAUTH. >> What is your opinion on this? > Let's worry about that if it actually becomes a problem. I don't anticipate > needing such fine grained controls. As a policy, i want to retain the port in unauthenticated state, unless UMD wants it otherwise. This policy will save the frequent sanity check (poll of RxStatus reg) of authenticated HDCP sink from KMD part. So when the CP protection breaks on encrypted port, I want to keep UMD informed that port is under reauth process. So that UMD can take a call on the desired CP state of the port. If we agree on above policy, it will be good to address the above need of interface at this point in time. > >>> This also doesn't seem to do the lockdown mode to force hdcp mode. And >>> afair it also doesn't match what CrOS currently uses, which means we don't >>> have userspace for this. >> AFAIK, Either way we don't have userspace for HDCP2.2 at present, as CrOS >> interface is designed for >> HDCP1.4(Need to cross check this with sean). But I will check with seanpaul >> if there is any plan for extending it for HDCP2.2 too. >> If so we could enable CrOS as consumer for HDCP2.2 against planned open >> source consumer from my side. >> >> As discussed in cover letter I am starting on a UMD library >> which will be open sourced as a HDCP1.4 and 2.2 service provider for >> chromebox stack and Android. > I'm not sure this really justifies its own library. Or at least, I hope it > doesn't. All userspace should have to do is 3 things: > > 1- Tell kernel it wants content protection > 2- Determine what method is being used for content protection Yes it is indirect selection of HDCP version. Userspace decides the cp for which content type and drm decides which version can do that and implements that. > 3- Determine if the display is protected at any given time Yes it has to continue monitoring the encrypted port too. As this is needed to prevent the leakage of protected content on runtime encryption failed port. This can be done in two ways 1. through freq polling (min once in a Sec) on hdcp property. 2. Broadcasting uevent from KMD on HDCP state change and monitor for it at UMD. This avoids the polling for sanity check and also for detecting request(EN/DIS able) completion. I have opted for option 2, as that sounds better design. Please share your view on that too. > Chrome, Android (well, drm_hwc) already understand drm properties, so I'm not > sure how they would benefit from an additional layer of misdirection. Benefit we are thinking of having a separate layer is maintainability. We can enhance the library for future addition of HDCP versions by retaining the same interface hence not disturbing any consumers (compositors). > > Sean > > >>> I think the best approach would be if we simply try to upstream _exactly_ >>> the property CrOS currently uses (not even bothering with type 0 vs type 1 >>> if that's not required), since that is the currently only open source >>> userspace that asks for this. >> At first stage, as we are developing the HDCP2.2 support at DRM at first >> than HDCP1.4, >> we need to extend CrOS property for HDCP2.2 and then upstream. That will be >> the fruitful solution for us. >> >> --Ram >>> Going with a much more complicated or >>> different interface just because only risks a massive discussion and >>> subsequent long delays. >>> -Daniel >>> >>>> +}; >>>> +DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_hdcp_name, drm_hdcp_enum_list) >>>> + >>>> /** >>>> * drm_display_info_set_bus_formats - set the supported bus formats >>>> * @info: display info to store bus formats in >>>> @@ -789,6 +812,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>> dev->mode_config.link_status_property = prop; >>>> + prop = drm_property_create_bitmask(dev, 0, "hdcp", drm_hdcp_enum_list, >>>> + ARRAY_SIZE(drm_hdcp_enum_list), >>>> + DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS); >>>> + if (!prop) >>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> + dev->mode_config.hdcp_property = prop; >>>> + >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..7cebf0f >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ >>>> +/* >>>> + * Copyright (c) 2017 Intel Corporation >>>> + * >>>> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its >>>> + * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that >>>> + * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright >>>> + * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and >>>> + * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or >>>> + * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, >>>> + * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations >>>> + * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as >>>> + * is" without express or implied warranty. >>>> + * >>>> + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, >>>> + * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO >>>> + * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR >>>> + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, >>>> + * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER >>>> + * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE >>>> + * OF THIS SOFTWARE. >>>> + */ >>>> + >>>> +/* >>>> + * Header for HDCP specific data >>>> + */ >>>> + >>>> +#ifndef __DRM_HDCP_H__ >>>> +#define __DRM_HDCP_H__ >>>> + >>>> +/** >>>> + * HDCP property related information >>>> + */ >>>> +/* RW: HDCP Encryption Requests and Status bits */ >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_ENABLE BIT(0) >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 BIT(4) >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 BIT(5) >>>> + >>>> +/* RO: HDCP Version supported on Platform + panel */ >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED BIT(12) >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED BIT(13) >>>> + >>>> +/* RO: Status of the requested operations */ >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_WIP BIT(20) >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED BIT(21) >>>> + >>>> +/* RO: Error Status From HDCP sink */ >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED BIT(22) >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED BIT(23) >>>> + >>>> +#define DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS (DRM_HDCP_ENABLE | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 \ >>>> + | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 | \ >>>> + DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED | \ >>>> + DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED | DRM_HDCP_WIP | \ >>>> + DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED | \ >>>> + DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED | \ >>>> + DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) >>>> + >>>> +#endif /* __DRM_HDCP_H__ */ >>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >>>> index 4298171..0c5bb90 100644 >>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h >>>> @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ struct drm_mode_config { >>>> */ >>>> struct drm_property *link_status_property; >>>> /** >>>> + * @hdcp_property: Default connector property for HDCP >>>> + * of a connector >>>> + */ >>>> + struct drm_property *hdcp_property; >>>> + /** >>>> * @plane_type_property: Default plane property to differentiate >>>> * CURSOR, PRIMARY and OVERLAY legacy uses of planes. >>>> */ >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.4 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Intel-gfx mailing list >>>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >> _______________________________________________ >> dri-devel mailing list >> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel >
On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >>>> works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >>>> needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >>>> stuff? >>> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >>> kobj-uevent >>> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >>> configuration. >>> >>> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. >> I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think this >> is too contentious. > I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content > protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer > the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. > -Daniel I understand the approach. But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM with a design which can easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS property a bit with ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. --Ram
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: > On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other > stuff? > > enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with > kobj-uevent > for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 > configuration. > > And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. > > I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think > this > is too contentious. > > I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content > protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer > the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. > -Daniel > > I understand the approach. > > But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM > with a design which can > easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS > property a bit with > ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is necessary? There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. -Daniel
On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: >> On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >> works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >> needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >> stuff? >> >> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >> kobj-uevent >> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >> configuration. >> >> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. >> >> I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think >> this >> is too contentious. >> >> I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content >> protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer >> the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. >> -Daniel >> >> I understand the approach. >> >> But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM >> with a design which can >> easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS >> property a bit with >> ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. > Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we > could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At > least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the > enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is > necessary? > > There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do > that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as follows: HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For Example lets say - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 panel here). - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for Userspace to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the content type classification. Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content that could be rendered to HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly classified as Type 1 by KMD. Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content to HDCP2.2 devices only. More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the HDCP2.2 compliance. Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer to go ahead with HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. --Ram > -Daniel
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> > wrote: > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other > stuff? > > enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with > kobj-uevent > for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 > configuration. > > And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. > > I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think > this > is too contentious. > > I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content > protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer > the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. > -Daniel > > I understand the approach. > > But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM > with a design which can > easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS > property a bit with > ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. > > Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we > could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At > least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the > enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is > necessary? > > There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do > that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. > > Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as > follows: Aside: You're quoting is broken for inline quoting. Either fix the quoting or top-quote (there's no difference between your text and mine, mine should be indented with > or | or similar). > HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For > Example lets say > - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater > - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel > - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. > > In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: > - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater > - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only > (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). > - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 > panel here). > - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. > > So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for > Userspace > to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the > content type classification. Yes, that is the case, but also the point of gradual enabling. Atm (with the current CrOS usersapce) userspace can ask for "pls give me content protection, I don't care what level/type". That itself is already useful, and a good step forward. Allowing to ask for a specific type is something on top. > Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content > that could be rendered to > HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly > classified as Type 1 by KMD. Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall back to type 0 (if that's available). > Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content > to HDCP2.2 devices only. I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed. > More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the > HDCP2.2 compliance. > Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer > to go ahead with > HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. Yes, it's only hdcp1.4, and getting to full hdcp2.2 will take more work. You can do all of that in one go, but my experience with upstreaming new uabi is that usually that's not the most effective way to go about things. But in the end, that's your choice. -Daniel
On Thursday 13 July 2017 04:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >> works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >> needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >> stuff? >> >> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >> kobj-uevent >> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >> configuration. >> >> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. >> >> I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think >> this >> is too contentious. >> >> I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content >> protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer >> the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. >> -Daniel >> >> I understand the approach. >> >> But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM >> with a design which can >> easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS >> property a bit with >> ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. >> >> Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we >> could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At >> least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the >> enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is >> necessary? >> >> There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do >> that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. >> >> Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as >> follows: > Aside: You're quoting is broken for inline quoting. Either fix the > quoting or top-quote (there's no difference between your text and > mine, mine should be indented with > or | or similar). Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope now it is fine. Just reset the settings on thunderbird > >> HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For >> Example lets say >> - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater >> - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel >> - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. >> >> In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: >> - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater >> - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only >> (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). >> - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 >> panel here). >> - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. >> >> So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for >> Userspace >> to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the >> content type classification. > Yes, that is the case, but also the point of gradual enabling. Atm > (with the current CrOS usersapce) userspace can ask for "pls give me > content protection, I don't care what level/type". That itself is > already useful, and a good step forward. Allowing to ask for a > specific type is something on top. Ok. When i think over it, that sounds as a good idea to go gradually for enabling HDCP2.2. > >> Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content >> that could be rendered to >> HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly >> classified as Type 1 by KMD. > Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall > back to type 0 (if that's available). I think i misinterpreted. We could enable the HDCP2.2(if supported on panel) for the Type 0 content. No issue on that >> Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content >> to HDCP2.2 devices only. > I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed. >> More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the >> HDCP2.2 compliance. >> Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer >> to go ahead with >> HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. > Yes, it's only hdcp1.4, and getting to full hdcp2.2 will take more > work. You can do all of that in one go, but my experience with > upstreaming new uabi is that usually that's not the most effective way > to go about things. But in the end, that's your choice. Agreed. We will go gradually about enabling HDCP2.2. 1. Enable HDCP2.2 for HDCP_ENABLE with Content type as 0. 2. Enable HDCP2.2 for Type 1 content with Enum value HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 3. Making HDCP2.2 support as HDCP2.2 spec compliant. But I think i will just add another enum value HDCP_UNSUPPORTED to mark the no HDCP supported on the setup. I hope that is fine. > -Daniel
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 06:29:33PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 04:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp > > > works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if > > > needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other > > > stuff? > > > > > > enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with > > > kobj-uevent > > > for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 > > > configuration. > > > > > > And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. > > > > > > I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think > > > this > > > is too contentious. > > > > > > I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content > > > protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer > > > the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. > > > -Daniel > > > > > > I understand the approach. > > > > > > But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM > > > with a design which can > > > easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS > > > property a bit with > > > ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. > > > > > > Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we > > > could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At > > > least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the > > > enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is > > > necessary? > > > > > > There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do > > > that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. > > > > > > Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as > > > follows: > > Aside: You're quoting is broken for inline quoting. Either fix the > > quoting or top-quote (there's no difference between your text and > > mine, mine should be indented with > or | or similar). > Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope now it is fine. Just reset the settings on > thunderbird Yes, looks good now. > > > > > HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For > > > Example lets say > > > - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater > > > - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel > > > - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. > > > > > > In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: > > > - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater > > > - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only > > > (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). > > > - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 > > > panel here). > > > - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. > > > > > > So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for > > > Userspace > > > to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the > > > content type classification. > > Yes, that is the case, but also the point of gradual enabling. Atm > > (with the current CrOS usersapce) userspace can ask for "pls give me > > content protection, I don't care what level/type". That itself is > > already useful, and a good step forward. Allowing to ask for a > > specific type is something on top. > Ok. When i think over it, that sounds as a good idea to go gradually for > enabling HDCP2.2. > > > > > Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content > > > that could be rendered to > > > HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly > > > classified as Type 1 by KMD. > > Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall > > back to type 0 (if that's available). > I think i misinterpreted. We could enable the HDCP2.2(if supported on panel) > for the Type 0 content. No issue on that > > > Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content > > > to HDCP2.2 devices only. > > I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed. > > > > More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the > > > HDCP2.2 compliance. > > > Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer > > > to go ahead with > > > HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. > > Yes, it's only hdcp1.4, and getting to full hdcp2.2 will take more > > work. You can do all of that in one go, but my experience with > > upstreaming new uabi is that usually that's not the most effective way > > to go about things. But in the end, that's your choice. > Agreed. We will go gradually about enabling HDCP2.2. > 1. Enable HDCP2.2 for HDCP_ENABLE with Content type as 0. > 2. Enable HDCP2.2 for Type 1 content with Enum value HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 > 3. Making HDCP2.2 support as HDCP2.2 spec compliant. > > But I think i will just add another enum value HDCP_UNSUPPORTED to mark the > no HDCP supported on the setup. > I hope that is fine. Makes sense. btw I chatted with Shashi today, I think it'd be good if we could have a chat next week about some of the design patterns for the implementation. I can give you some pointers for kernel best practices (so you understand why things are done a bit different). But I think first priority is to get agreement on the new uapi and make sure it works for CrOS, we can polish the implementation in following rounds. Thanks, Daniel
On Friday 14 July 2017 12:32 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 06:29:33PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote: >> >> On Thursday 13 July 2017 04:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> wrote: >>>> On Thursday 13 July 2017 02:15 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why all these intermediate steps and different failure modes? Either hdcp >>>> works, or it doesnt (and we can split up with the type 0 or type 1 if >>>> needed), but I don't know what userspace would do with all the other >>>> stuff? >>>> >>>> enum values HDCP_ENABLE, HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 and HDCP_DISABLE along with >>>> kobj-uevent >>>> for HDCP state change, could do the bare minimal HDCP1.4 and HDCP2.2 >>>> configuration. >>>> >>>> And without Type info it is not possible for HDCP2.2. >>>> >>>> I've had requests from chrome team to expose HDCP version, so I don't think >>>> this >>>> is too contentious. >>>> >>>> I think it'd still be easier if we start out with the current content >>>> protection props that CrOS is using, and then figure out how to layer >>>> the exact version/standard on top? One thing at a time and all that. >>>> -Daniel >>>> >>>> I understand the approach. >>>> >>>> But Only problem is current upstreaming effort is for HDCP2.2 support at DRM >>>> with a design which can >>>> easily accommodate other versions too. So we need to stretch current CrOS >>>> property a bit with >>>> ENABLE_TYPE1 and UNSUPPORTED etc. Hope that should be fine for all. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but if we just go with enable (without specifying the type) we >>>> could still enable the highest hdcp level (so 2.2 for our case). At >>>> least I don't see a reason why we need to already have the >>>> enable_type1 thing. Can you pls explain why you think this is >>>> necessary? >>>> >>>> There seems to be a need to force type1, but I think it's easier to do >>>> that as an extension. Of course we need to keep it in mind meanwhile. >>>> >>>> Background for this need of Type info in HDCP2.2 implementation is as >>>> follows: >>> Aside: You're quoting is broken for inline quoting. Either fix the >>> quoting or top-quote (there's no difference between your text and >>> mine, mine should be indented with > or | or similar). >> Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope now it is fine. Just reset the settings on >> thunderbird > Yes, looks good now. > >>>> HDCP2.2 Spec classify the protected content as Type 0 and Type 1. For >>>> Example lets say >>>> - A HDCP2.2 Src is connected to HDCP repeater >>>> - that repeater is connected to a HDCP2.2 panel >>>> - that same repeater is also connected to a HDCP1.4 panel. >>>> >>>> In this topology, as part of Repeater authentication: >>>> - HDCP2.2 Source will mention the Content Type to HDCP2.2 Repeater >>>> - Repeater can transmit this Type 1 content to HDCP2.2 compliant sink only >>>> (which is HDCP 2.2 panel here). >>>> - Repeater can transmit any type0 content to any other devices (like HDCP1.4 >>>> panel here). >>>> - Device with no HDCP support will get Neither of Type 0 or Type 1. >>>> >>>> So if we implement HDCP2.2 with HDCP_ENABLE state alone there is no way for >>>> Userspace >>>> to request for HDCP2.2 protection only. In this case we wont know the >>>> content type classification. >>> Yes, that is the case, but also the point of gradual enabling. Atm >>> (with the current CrOS usersapce) userspace can ask for "pls give me >>> content protection, I don't care what level/type". That itself is >>> already useful, and a good step forward. Allowing to ask for a >>> specific type is something on top. >> Ok. When i think over it, that sounds as a good idea to go gradually for >> enabling HDCP2.2. >>>> Even if we force Content type to Type1, in above topology Type 0 content >>>> that could be rendered to >>>> HDCP1.4 compliant panel wont be rendered as that has been forcibly >>>> classified as Type 1 by KMD. >>> Why? HDCP_ENABLE would just give you the "best" HDCP, so we'd fall >>> back to type 0 (if that's available). >> I think i misinterpreted. We could enable the HDCP2.2(if supported on panel) >> for the Type 0 content. No issue on that >>>> Forcing type 1 content to Type 0 will break the association of type1 content >>>> to HDCP2.2 devices only. >>> I didn't propose to force type1 everywhere. Why do you think this is needed. >>>> More than that Devices with our indented DRM HDCP2.2 support wont pass the >>>> HDCP2.2 compliance. >>>> Considering we could extend the CrOS Userspace for HDCP2.2, I would prefer >>>> to go ahead with >>>> HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 along with HDCP_ENABLE. >>> Yes, it's only hdcp1.4, and getting to full hdcp2.2 will take more >>> work. You can do all of that in one go, but my experience with >>> upstreaming new uabi is that usually that's not the most effective way >>> to go about things. But in the end, that's your choice. >> Agreed. We will go gradually about enabling HDCP2.2. >> 1. Enable HDCP2.2 for HDCP_ENABLE with Content type as 0. >> 2. Enable HDCP2.2 for Type 1 content with Enum value HDCP_ENABLE_TYPE1 >> 3. Making HDCP2.2 support as HDCP2.2 spec compliant. >> >> But I think i will just add another enum value HDCP_UNSUPPORTED to mark the >> no HDCP supported on the setup. >> I hope that is fine. > Makes sense. > > btw I chatted with Shashi today, I think it'd be good if we could have a > chat next week about some of the design patterns for the implementation. I > can give you some pointers for kernel best practices (so you understand > why things are done a bit different). > > But I think first priority is to get agreement on the new uapi and make > sure it works for CrOS, we can polish the implementation in following > rounds. > > Thanks, Daniel Sure daniel. Now I have prepared v2 of this patch alone. Please have review that too. Based on feedbacks I will spin other patches of this series. --Ram
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c index 8072e6e..04f8cf8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <drm/drm_connector.h> #include <drm/drm_edid.h> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h> +#include <drm/drm_hdcp.h> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h" #include "drm_internal.h" @@ -617,6 +618,28 @@ static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_link_status_enum_list[] = { }; DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_link_status_name, drm_link_status_enum_list) +static const struct drm_prop_enum_list drm_hdcp_enum_list[] = { + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_ENABLE) - 1, + "Enable HDCP Encryption" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0) - 1, + "HDCP Content type bit0" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1) - 1, + "HDCP Content type bit1" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED) - 1, + "HDCP1.x Supported" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED) - 1, + "HDCP2.x Supported" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_WIP) - 1, + "HDCP work in progress" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED) - 1, + "HDCP Authentication Failed" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED) - 1, + "HDCP Link Integrity Failed" }, + { __builtin_ffs(DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) - 1, + "HDCP Reauthentication Requested" }, +}; +DRM_ENUM_NAME_FN(drm_get_hdcp_name, drm_hdcp_enum_list) + /** * drm_display_info_set_bus_formats - set the supported bus formats * @info: display info to store bus formats in @@ -789,6 +812,13 @@ int drm_connector_create_standard_properties(struct drm_device *dev) return -ENOMEM; dev->mode_config.link_status_property = prop; + prop = drm_property_create_bitmask(dev, 0, "hdcp", drm_hdcp_enum_list, + ARRAY_SIZE(drm_hdcp_enum_list), + DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS); + if (!prop) + return -ENOMEM; + dev->mode_config.hdcp_property = prop; + return 0; } diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7cebf0f --- /dev/null +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +/* + * Copyright (c) 2017 Intel Corporation + * + * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its + * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that + * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright + * notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and + * that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or + * publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, + * written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations + * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as + * is" without express or implied warranty. + * + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, + * INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO + * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, + * DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER + * TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE + * OF THIS SOFTWARE. + */ + +/* + * Header for HDCP specific data + */ + +#ifndef __DRM_HDCP_H__ +#define __DRM_HDCP_H__ + +/** + * HDCP property related information + */ +/* RW: HDCP Encryption Requests and Status bits */ +#define DRM_HDCP_ENABLE BIT(0) +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 BIT(4) +#define DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 BIT(5) + +/* RO: HDCP Version supported on Platform + panel */ +#define DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED BIT(12) +#define DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED BIT(13) + +/* RO: Status of the requested operations */ +#define DRM_HDCP_WIP BIT(20) +#define DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED BIT(21) + +/* RO: Error Status From HDCP sink */ +#define DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED BIT(22) +#define DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED BIT(23) + +#define DRM_HDCP_PROP_SUPPORTED_BITS (DRM_HDCP_ENABLE | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT0 \ + | DRM_HDCP_TYPE_BIT1 | \ + DRM_HDCP1_SUPPORTED | \ + DRM_HDCP2_SUPPORTED | DRM_HDCP_WIP | \ + DRM_HDCP_AUTH_FAILED | \ + DRM_HDCP_LINK_INTEGRITY_FAILED | \ + DRM_HDCP_REAUTH_REQUESTED) + +#endif /* __DRM_HDCP_H__ */ diff --git a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h index 4298171..0c5bb90 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_mode_config.h @@ -538,6 +538,11 @@ struct drm_mode_config { */ struct drm_property *link_status_property; /** + * @hdcp_property: Default connector property for HDCP + * of a connector + */ + struct drm_property *hdcp_property; + /** * @plane_type_property: Default plane property to differentiate * CURSOR, PRIMARY and OVERLAY legacy uses of planes. */
DRM connector property is created as bitmask to receive HDCP enable/disable request along with content type. And also there are Read only status bits for 1. HDCP spec capability of the connector + panel 2. HDCP encryption status of the connector Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++ include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/drm/drm_mode_config.h | 5 ++++ 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_hdcp.h