On 08/27/2017 01:49 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
Hi Leo,
On 24 August 2017 at 16:11, Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com>
---
src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.h | 21 ++++----
src/gallium/state_trackers/omx/vid_dec.c | 32 +-----------
3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c
b/src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c
index a79bf11264..794c8b5b17 100644
--- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c
+++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/vl/vl_compositor.c
@@ -885,6 +885,32 @@ draw_layers(struct vl_compositor *c, struct
vl_compositor_state *s, struct u_rec
}
}
+static void
+set_yuv_layer(struct vl_compositor_state *s, struct vl_compositor *c, unsigned
layer,
Why did you bother moving and renaming vl_compositor_set_yuv_layer?
Because the only caller now is moved from OMX to VL, the function is
good enough to be a static, and that is name scheme for static function
in vl layer.
You want to either keep it separate patch
No. Separating the patch into vl and st/omx may cause build failing
because of the renaming
or cover mention why in the
commit message.
Sure. I will add the reason in the commit messages.
Thanks,
Leo
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
