On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Steve Lhomme <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 13/12/2016 14:19, Steve Lhomme wrote: >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeMPEG2_VLD, 0xee27417f, >>> 0x5e28,0x4e65,0xbe,0xea,0x1d,0x26,0xb5,0x08,0xad,0xc9); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeMPEG2and1_VLD, 0x86695f12, >>> 0x340e,0x4f04,0x9f,0xd3,0x92,0x53,0xdd,0x32,0x74,0x60); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeH264_E, 0x1b81be68, >>> 0xa0c7,0x11d3,0xb9,0x84,0x00,0xc0,0x4f,0x2e,0x73,0xc5); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeH264_F, 0x1b81be69, >>> 0xa0c7,0x11d3,0xb9,0x84,0x00,0xc0,0x4f,0x2e,0x73,0xc5); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVADDI_Intel_ModeH264_E, 0x604F8E68, >>> 0x4951,0x4C54,0x88,0xFE,0xAB,0xD2,0x5C,0x15,0xB3,0xD6); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeVC1_D, 0x1b81beA3, >>> 0xa0c7,0x11d3,0xb9,0x84,0x00,0xc0,0x4f,0x2e,0x73,0xc5); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeVC1_D2010, 0x1b81beA4, >>> 0xa0c7,0x11d3,0xb9,0x84,0x00,0xc0,0x4f,0x2e,0x73,0xc5); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeHEVC_VLD_Main, 0x5b11d51b, >>> 0x2f4c,0x4452,0xbc,0xc3,0x09,0xf2,0xa1,0x16,0x0c,0xc0); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_ModeHEVC_VLD_Main10,0x107af0e0, >>> 0xef1a,0x4d19,0xab,0xa8,0x67,0xa1,0x63,0x07,0x3d,0x13); >>> +DEFINE_GUID(DXVA2_NoEncrypt, 0x1b81beD0, >>> 0xa0c7,0x11d3,0xb9,0x84,0x00,0xc0,0x4f,0x2e,0x73,0xc5); >> >> Shouldn't they live in a common header? > > I agree. > >> In general, shouldn't this code and the dxva2 be refactored so all the >> common parts are shared? > > Yes but should refactoring happen after similar code is added ? Doing > a refactor before the code is added sound counter intuitive. >
Refactoring the code first to be re-usable elsewhere, and then adding a new component that also uses it seems pretty normal to me. Adding a duplicate first and then removing it again seems much more ugly. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
