Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/7] avutil: add an API to handle 3D Reference Displays Information

From: Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org>
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/7] avutil: add an API to handle 3D Reference Displays Information
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:07:05 +0200
Message-ID: <7afbb7e5-b32e-4001-aa3f-7cd0d44cd859@rothenpieler.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <GV1P250MB073778DA19339866EC7FB9688F6BA@GV1P250MB0737.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

On 10/06/2025 00:09, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> James Almer:
>> On 6/9/2025 5:59 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
>>> On 08.06.2025 17:45, James Almer wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:29 AM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>>>>> Timo Rothenpieler:
>>>>>> From: James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like that you add another allocator for this; instead we should
>>>>> add a generic allocator for the frame side-data types.
>>>>
>>>> Wont work for packet side data. And i purposely didn't add yet
>>>> another allocator that inserts the result into a frame, like there's
>>>> in so many other modules, because eventually the generic one would be
>>>> introduced.
>>>>
>>>> You said you wanted to take over my work on the generic allocator,
>>>> but not sure if you did anything with it. The core issue was handling
>>>> more complex types that didn't just have an extra nb_blocks argument.
>>>
>>> So, what is the conclusion here?
>>> I'd like to push this set if you can come to an agreement.
>>>
>>> I haven't looked into it much, but implementing av_tdrdi_alloc() in a
>>> generic way does seem a bit hacky. And other types might need even
>>> more info for the allocation.
>>
>> The set LGTM. A custom frame side data allocator does not imply an
>> allocator is required for this struct. Frames are not the only user.
>>
> 
> I was thinking about a generic side data allocator (for the
> AVFrameSideDataType stuff, but it is not meant to be AVFrame specific),
> so that it can be used by more than just AVFrames. Will write one tomorrow.

Would you be okay to for now pushing this with the API turned into an 
internal one, so the public API can then be decided and implemented later?
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".