On 08/28/2017 05:01 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 28 August 2017 at 03:43, Leo Liu <leo....@amd.com> wrote:
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.
I think you said is perfectly - "good enough to be". Aka it's not required ;-)
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
Nope it won't:
a) vl_compositor_yuv_deint: move the omx > vl, still using
vl_compositor_set_yuv_layer
b) vl_compositor_set_yuv_layer: drop the prefix and make it static
Sounds good. It will be separated in next version when I re-send it to
the list along with other patches in series.
Cheers,
Leo
-Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
