Hi Javier, Am Montag, den 03.09.2012, 13:01 +0200 schrieb javier Martin: > Hi Philipp, > thank you for your effort. > > My comment is aimed to the whole patch. > > Couldn't we use a more descriptive name for these 'framebuffers'? Both > the internal buffers and the output frames are framebuffers which > leads to confusion. They are frame buffers, though, for reconstructed and reference frames. And whether output/source vb2_buffers or capture/destination vb2_buffers contain raw frames will depend whether ctx->inst_type is CODA_INST_ENCODER or CODA_INST_DECODER, so it's bound to be confusing anyway. > How about 'internalbuffers' or 'privatebuffers'? I know the name of > some register, according to the datasheet, is > 'CODA_CMD_SET_FRAME_BUF_NUM', but this is quite unfortunate IMHO and > we shouldnt' stick to this naming. Dropping the 'frame', one could argue, would lead to confusion with the code/work/parabuffers. ctx->internal_frames[] ? regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
