drm/amd/display: Try RGB before YCbCr 4:4:4 in stream validationgrafted

amdgpu_dm_create_validate_stream_for_sink() walks encoding_order[] and
uses the first encoding that validates. YCbCr 4:4:4 is listed before
RGB, so an HDMI sink that advertises 4:4:4 gets YCbCr 4:4:4 whenever the
"color format" property is left at AUTO, even though RGB fits the same
link.

That contradicts the documented AUTO behaviour for HDMI in enum
drm_connector_color_format (RGB, falling back to YCbCr 4:2:0 only when
the bandwidth is not available or the mode is 4:2:0-only), which the
amdgpu implementation of the property also describes. It also leaves
the "Broadcast RGB" property without effect on such sinks, since the
quantization range it selects only applies to RGB output.

Try RGB first. The mask still holds every encoding the sink supports,
so a mode that cannot carry RGB falls back exactly as before.

For reference, v7.2 picked RGB here unless YCbCr 4:4:4 was forced
through debugfs, while earlier kernels picked YCbCr 4:4:4 for any HDMI
sink that advertised it.

Fixes: 0b0ff65d3ca1 ("drm/amd/display: Refactor stream validation")
Suggested-by: Adolfo Rodrigues <adolfotregosa@gmail.com>
Assisted-by: Claude Code:claude-fable-5-1
Signed-off-by: Adrian Betschart <adrian.betschart@cinemaone.ch>
Reviewed-by: Fangzhi Zuo <jerry.zuo@amd.com>
Tested-by: Adolfo Rodrigues <adolfotregosa@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler <daniel.wheeler@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
(cherry picked from commit 7de432bc753133764dc40d37f9388da56de251e7)

1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..13ab13984
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/nova/guidelines.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
+
+==========
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+This document describes the general project guidelines that apply to nova-core
+and nova-drm.
+
+Language
+========
+
+The Nova project uses the Rust programming language. In this context, all rules
+of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/general-information` apply. Additionally, the following rules
+apply.
+
+- Unless technically necessary otherwise (e.g. uAPI), any driver code is written
+  in Rust.
+
+- Unless technically necessary, unsafe Rust code must be avoided. In case of
+  technical necessity, unsafe code should be isolated in a separate component
+  providing a safe API for other driver code to use.
+
+Style
+-----
+
+All rules of the Rust for Linux project as documented in
+:doc:`../../rust/coding-guidelines` apply.
+
+For a submit checklist, please also see the `Rust for Linux Submit checklist
+addendum <https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum>`_.
+
+Documentation
+=============
+
+The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability,
+accessibility for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general,
+but especially for a driver running as complex hardware as Nova is targeting.
+
+Hence, adding documentation of any kind is very much encouraged by the project.
+
+Besides that, there are some minimum requirements.
+
+- Every non-private structure needs at least a brief doc comment explaining the
+  semantical sense of the structure, as well as potential locking and lifetime
+  requirements. It is encouraged to have the same minimum documentation for
+  non-trivial private structures.
+
+- uAPIs must be fully documented with kernel-doc comments; additionally, the
+  semantical behavior must be explained including potential special or corner
+  cases.
+
+- The APIs connecting the 1st level driver (nova-core) with 2nd level drivers
+  must be fully documented. This includes doc comments, potential locking and
+  lifetime requirements, as well as example code if applicable.
+
+- Abbreviations must be explained when introduced; terminology must be uniquely
+  defined.
+
+- Register addresses, layouts, shift values and masks must be defined properly;
+  unless obvious, the semantical sense must be documented. This only applies if
+  the author is able to obtain the corresponding information.
+
+Acceptance Criteria
+===================
+
+- Patches must only be applied if reviewed by at least one other person on the
+  mailing list; this also applies for maintainers.