[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPBb6MVJ+baQshWRJJrwKJ6bKss_KqHoC1xP9kvGtDqC0iFZWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 22:30:02 +0900
From: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...omium.org>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>
Cc: Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Jeffrey Kardatzke <jkardatzke@...omium.org>,
Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] media: uapi: h264: Split prediction weight parameters
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:23 AM Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> The prediction weight parameters are only required under
> certain conditions, which depend on slice header parameters.
>
> The slice header syntax specifies that the prediction
> weight table is present if:
>
> ((weighted_pred_flag && (slice_type == P || slice_type == SP)) || \
> (weighted_bipred_idc == 1 && slice_type == B))
This is a pretty important bit - how about mentioning in the documentation when
this new control is expected to be present, so both drivers and
userspace submit it
or omit it in a consistent manner?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists