Hi, Thanks Tomasz and Gerd for the suggestions and information. On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:39 PM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On the host side, the encode and decode APIs are different as well, so > > having separate implementation decoder and encoder, possibly just > > sharing some helper code, would make much more sense. > > When going down that route I'd suggest to use two device ids (even when > specifying both variants in one spec section and one header file due to > the overlaps) instead of feature flags. Sounds good. It makes sense to use different device IDs for different devices. > > > > I don't think using fourcc is a problem, and given that both drm and > > > v4l2 use fourcc already this would be a good choice I think. > > > > Both DRM and V4L2 use two mutually incompatible sets of FourCCs, so > > I'm not sure how it could be a good choice. At least unless we decide > > to pick a specific set of FourCC. It doesn't help that Windows/DirectX > > has its own set of FourCCs that's again slightly different than the > > two mentioned before. > > Ouch, wasn't aware of that. That makes reusing fourcc codes much less > useful. > > > > But the definition should be more specific than just "fourcc". Best > > > would be to explicitly list and define each format supported by the > > > spec. > > > > Why not be consistent with virtio-gpu and just define new formats as > > we add support for them as sequential integers? > > Yes, lets do that. > It makes sense. I seems to have overestimated FourCC. Best, Keiichi > cheers, > Gerd >
