[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH][VAAPI][2/6] Add common data structures and helpers
Thu Feb 26 17:24:12 CET 2009
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:51:04PM +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:20:34PM +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> i think the struct placed in data should be designed so that it does not
> >>> need any vaapi headers, that is contain pointers to structs instead of
> >>> vaapi structs.
> >>> then this "data struct" can just be placed in avcodec.h and vaapi.h wont
> >>> be needed.
> >> It's hard because VADisplay, VAConfigID, VAContextID, VASurfaceID are not
> >> structs but either void * (VADisplay) or unsigned int (VA*ID). I think
> > neither void * nor unsigned int would need a #include va.h
> Though they are primitive types, a change in the VA API definitions would
> mess the things up if we want to maintain several versions of the API.
> Highly unlikely, but it's a case that might happen.
ok but why do we need to use them in the public interface between lavc and
> >>>> +/** \brief Allocate a new VA API render state structure. */
> >>>> +struct vaapi_render_state *av_alloc_vaapi_render_state(void);
> >>> do i understand correctly that the use provided get_buffer() is called and
> >>> then the user calls av_alloc_vaapi_render_state()?
> >>> this is ugly
> >>> either lavc should already call av_alloc_vaapi_render_state() before
> >>> get_buffer()
> >>> or it should be done in default_get_buffer() and the users get_buffer() should
> >>> call default_get_buffer()
> >>> or allocate it by avpicture_alloc()
> >>> i dunno which of these would be cleanest ...
> >> I agree that we shall not depend on a specific AVFrame::data to stuff
> >> the HW accelerator data in. We should not delegate the call to
> >> default_get_buffer() to the user as he would certainly forget about it.
> >> Why not use an hwaccel_data member for it? Though, in that case, data
> >> shall not be NULL for correct operation of h264.
> > iam ok with that.
> The problem is then what to fill in data. It cannot be NULL, it cannot
> be "constant" (for all allocs) either. If the HW accelerator cannot handle
> surface pixels readback, this shall be valid. If it does support that, it
> would have allocated data[0-2] accordingly and those allocations naturally
> yield different pointers, so no problem in that case.
> I see two solutions:
> - Make data a linearly increasing ID just to make sure any allocated
> AVFrame::data is different
what about p->data = p->hwaccel_data ?
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel