Hi,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> + if (s->pix_fmt == AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P) {
> >>
> > +#if CONFIG_VP9_DXVA2_HWACCEL
> >> + *fmtp++ = AV_PIX_FMT_DXVA2_VLD;
> >> +#endif
> >> +#if CONFIG_VP9_D3D11VA_HWACCEL
> >> + *fmtp++ = AV_PIX_FMT_D3D11VA_VLD;
> >> +#endif
> >> + }
> >
> >
> > So ... this suggests that hwaccels will ever only support 420, 8bpp. That
> > may currently be true, but is that likely to hold forever? What happens
> if
> > we just do this regardless of pixfmt and let the hwaccel figure out if
> the
> > hw supports 420 or something else?
> >
>
> At the very least the DXVA2 hwaccel spec is limited to profile 0, so
> maybe it should even check the profile on top of this.
> In general, there is some disagreement if other chroma formats should
> use other hwaccel pixfmts, as the calling code can otherwise get
> confused, as it may need special handling to handle other chroma
> formats. However, since no hwaccel supports anything else yet (except
> hevc, which can do 420 10-bit, but I didn't push that to ffmpeg yet),
> it was not a real problem yet.
I'm ok with deferring it until such hardware comes along I guess, so
consider the comment ignorable...
Ronald
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
