On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:50 PM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Dmitry Sepp wrote: > > Hello Gerd, > > > > Thank you for your feedback. > > > > There is no relationship between those. As I mentioned earlier. we have also > > been working on a virtio video device at the same time. And there is no > > relationship between the two specs. > > Keiichi, have you looked at the spec? > > I think it is useful to have a single device specification for all video > functions given that there is a bunch of common stuff. Both encoder and > decoder must negotiate video frame and video stream parameters for > example. Also the virtio-video spec looks like a superset of > virtio-vdec. > > Is there any important feature in video-vdec which is missing in > virtio-video? > I just replied to Dmitry's email with further clarification on some vdec aspects and rationale behind some of the design decisions. Please take a look. I think it should be possible to build one protocol for both decoding and encoding. Actually virtio-vdec shouldn't need too much modification to handle encoding. The ability to set operating mode (decoder vs encoder) and set frame buffer format should be enough. However I believe that making it as generic as virtio-video adds too much complexity, increasing the possible attack surface and making it difficult to validate. Best regards, Tomasz
