Comment # 6
on bug 91281
from Andy Furniss
Maybe if enc->base.level is unreliable I shouldn't trust enc->base.max_references either, but it seems that the h/w gets set up using it - radeon_vce_40_2_2.c RVCE_CS(MAX2(enc->base.max_references, 1) - 1); // encBPicPattern RVCE_CS(MIN2(enc->base.max_references, 2)); // encNumberOfReferenceFrames RVCE_CS(enc->base.max_references + 1); // encMaxNumRefFrames radeon_vce_52.c: enc->enc_pic.pc.enc_b_pic_pattern = MAX2(enc->base.max_references, 1) - 1; enc->enc_pic.pc.enc_number_of_reference_frames = MIN2(enc->base.max_references, 2); enc->enc_pic.pc.enc_max_num_ref_frames = enc->base.max_references + 1; So unless I miss something the whole function body of get_cpb_num could be replaced with just return MIN2(enc->base.max_references + 1, 16); It works testing wise with level 5.2 and doesn't need the level given by the encoder/omx state tracker to be correct. It also saves allocating buffers that aren't really used.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
