On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:54:32 +0200 Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2012/2/27 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]>: > > Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> 2012/2/27 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]>: > >>> Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> writes: > >> The name is libtidsp. You get to call libav support for libtidsp > >> whatever you want, but anything other than libtidsp, or tidsp, is > >> *inconsistent*. Kind of calling vaapi hwaccel, intellink hwaccel. [...] > > That's not up to you, all you can decide is if to be inconsistent, or not. Uhmm. Have you considered that from the point of view of libav that tidsp is in itself inconsistent? Libav has to consider way more than just a chip or a library out there. Hence it tries to be consistent over all that it supports and possible will support. This decision can be influenced by what the libraries the module is based on is named but does not have to be. In this case tidsp would be incosistent and misleading. If i'd read "tidsp" somewhere, i'd imediatly think about a TMS320 support and not about a TMS320-in-OMAP3-funnelling support. In my oppinion you should accept Vladimirs advice and name it tidspbridge. Otherwise i fear your patch will not be accepted. Of course unless it's your intention to make your patch inacceptable in order to call names, because "they" refused to accept your patch... ...but i think you are not playing that dirty, are you? Attila Kinali -- Why does it take years to find the answers to the questions one should have asked long ago? _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
