[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 11/17] avformat/mxfenc: Store locally whether DNXHD profile is interlaced

[Andreas Rheinhardt]

Tomas Härdin:
> tis 2021-11-09 klockan 22:48 +0100 skrev Andreas Rheinhardt:
>> Tomas Härdin:
>>> tis 2021-11-09 klockan 19:01 +0100 skrev Andreas Rheinhardt:
>>>> It is just a flag per supported CID. So there is no reason to use
>>>> an avpriv function for this purpose.
>>>
>>> This is data duplication. Honestly these ULs should probably live
>>> in
>>> dnxhddata.c.
>>>
>>
>> But aren't these ULs mxf-specific? So the right place for them is
>> here
>> in libavformat.
>> And the amount of data duplicated is trivial; furthermore adding a
>> new
>> DNXHD profile then and now requires modifications in two tables, so I
>> don't see a maintenance burden either.
> 
> Right, this improves lavc/lavf separation. I suppose that's OK. Still
> not the biggest fan of having this kind of data in more than one place,
> but on the other hand it's constants..
> 

Ok, then I'll apply this.

>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt
>>>> <andreas.rheinhardt at outlook.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  libavformat/mxfenc.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>> ----
>>>> --
>>>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libavformat/mxfenc.c b/libavformat/mxfenc.c
>>>> index aa9857fcff..326ec6a7d6 100644
>>>> --- a/libavformat/mxfenc.c
>>>> +++ b/libavformat/mxfenc.c
>>>> @@ -2036,29 +2036,30 @@ static int
>>>> mxf_parse_prores_frame(AVFormatContext *s, AVStream *st, AVPacket
>>>> *pk
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static const struct {
>>>> -    int cid;
>>>> +    uint16_t cid;
>>>> +    uint8_t  interlaced;
>>>>      UID codec_ul;
>>>>  } mxf_dnxhd_codec_uls[] = {
>>>
>>> Not sure if the narrowing of types here does any good. You might
>>> need
>>> to put cid and interlaced after codec_ul. On the other hand UID is
>>> uint8_t[] so perhaps it works out.
>>>
>> The narrowing is irrelevant, as all cid values in use fit into an
>> uint16_t.
>> Why would I need to put it at the end? Do you worry about padding
>> between interlaced and codec_ul? In this case it doesn't matter: It
>> would just be a matter of whether the padding is in the middle or at
>> the
>> end of the structure.
> 
> I don't actually care. I just thought it was curious given patch 04
> 
> /Tomas
>