On 2014-12-17 01:34, Agatha Hu wrote:
Repost
-----Original Message-----
From: Agatha Hu
Sent: 2014年12月17日 15:49
To: 'Philip Langdale'; 'ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org'
Cc: Abhijit Patait; Eric Young; Jaime Ieong; Andrew Fear; Stephen
Warren; Andy Ritger
Subject: RE: ffmpeg nvenc
Hi Phil,
We've almost finished the license part in our patch and plan to commit
to ffmpeg community, but we found ffmpeg add Timo's nvenc patch days
ago, so our patch is incompatible with the TOT version.
Should we (1)Add libnvenc on TOT branch but without changing Timo's
work or (2)Change nvenc on TOT branch like an incremental patch on
Timo's work. In fact I would prefer (1), as it requires less work.
Agatha Hu
(Reposting my direct reply)
Yes, the world has moved on, I'm afraid. This means that (1) isn't going
to
be an easy sell. You'd need to demonstrate that it's so much better than
Timo's
patch that it's worth deleting his and replacing it with yours. The
first thing
you need to do is remove the abstraction layer, because that's not going
to fly
upstream, and it doesn't achieve anything useful. After that's cleaned
up, I
think you can make a decent argument that it's a more maintainable
implementation, especially if you and your team are going to maintain it
- you
have a much better understanding of the hardware features than Timo,
myself, or
anyone else outside nvidia - given the sparse API documentation.
The other alternative is to take Timo's as a base, add the x264 options
layer
and then expose more features there. I don't know which will end up
being more
work for you.
I'm still sitting on the improvements I made for b-frames etc, and I'll
post those after you republish the code.
Initially, I would still suggest posting the patch as-is (with the
corrected
licensing) so you can get more feedback from other people.
--phil
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
