[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/vf_xcam: add xcam video filter

[Zong, Wei]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Zane
> van Iperen
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 8:17 PM
> To: ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/vf_xcam: add xcam video filter
> 
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 00:55:56 +0800
> "zongwave" <wei.zong at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > ++static int xcam_query_formats(AVFilterContext *ctx) {
> > ++    XCAMContext *s = ctx->priv;
> > ++    AVFilterFormats *formats = NULL;
> > ++
> > ++    static const enum AVPixelFormat nv12_fmts[] = {AV_PIX_FMT_NV12,
> AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
> > ++    static const enum AVPixelFormat yuv420_fmts[] =
> {AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P, AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
> > ++    static const enum AVPixelFormat auto_fmts[] = {AV_PIX_FMT_NV12,
> > ++ AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P, AV_PIX_FMT_NONE};
> 
> Would these be better above the function instead of inside it?
> 

I noticed many vf implementation in libavfilter defined "static const" variables inside a function,
I just think this is a common style for libavfilter.
  

> > ++static av_cold int xcam_init(AVFilterContext *ctx) {
> > ++    XCAMContext *s = ctx->priv;
> > ++    int ret = 0;
> > ++
> > ++    s->handle = xcam_create_handle(s->name);
> > ++    if (!s->handle) {
> 
> Style nitpick, I'd tend to prefer inlining the assignment:
> 
>     if (!(s->handle = xcam_create_handle(s->name)))
> 
> but I guess that's personal preference.
> 
> 
> Overall looks fine, but someone more familiar with libavfilter should probably
> double-check.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org
> with subject "unsubscribe".