On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:00:33 -0300 Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Oops, this is just an internal note, it seems I forgot to remove this one. > > > I am right to think that this is basically the size in bits of the > > frame header ? Maybe it could be another way to formulate it ? I'm just > > trying to think of formulation that will better guide the developers > > implementing the parser feeding this. You basically need to parse the > > header to get this size (as everything is dynamically sized). > > > > Depending what you call "frame header", then yes, it's the size in bits. > > first_part_size parttion_sizes[0] > ^ ^ > | | > +--------+------+ +-----+-----+ > | control part | | | > +--------+----------------+------------------+-----------+-----+-----------+ > | tag 3B | extra 7B | hdr | mb_data | dct sz | dct part0 | ... | dct partn | > +--------+-----------------------------------+-----------+-----+-----------+ > > The above shows a VP8 frame, "macroblock_bit_offset" is the size in bits of > the "hdr" portion: i.e. the header of the first partition (aka control partition). > > Thinking about it, the current description is quite confusing. > > How about: > > "Size in bits of the frame header. In other words, this the size in bits of the header > portion of the first partition". How about having a similar diagram somewhere in the spec? It's usually much clearer than a sentence, at least that's my opinion. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
