On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:44:44 +0000 Mark Thompson <s...@jkqxz.net> wrote:
> On 10/02/18 16:29, Luca Barbato wrote: > > On 10/02/2018 16:59, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> Looks OK in general. > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:51:36AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/libavcodec/libaom.c > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ > >>> + > >>> +#define HIGH_DEPTH(fmt) \ > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I ## fmt ## 16: switch (depth) { \ > >>> + case 10: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV ## fmt ## P10; \ > >>> + case 12: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV ## fmt ## P12; \ > >>> + default: return AV_PIX_FMT_NONE; \ > >> > >> Move the switch statement to the next line for better readability please. > > > > Sure > > > >> > >>> +enum AVPixelFormat ff_aom_imgfmt_to_pixfmt(aom_img_fmt_t img, int depth) > >>> +{ > >>> + switch (img) { > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB24: return AV_PIX_FMT_RGB24; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB565: return AV_PIX_FMT_RGB565BE; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB555: return AV_PIX_FMT_RGB555BE; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_UYVY: return AV_PIX_FMT_UYVY422; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_YUY2: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUYV422; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_YVYU: return AV_PIX_FMT_YVYU422; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_BGR24: return AV_PIX_FMT_BGR24; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_ARGB: return AV_PIX_FMT_ARGB; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_ARGB_LE: return AV_PIX_FMT_BGRA; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB565_LE: return AV_PIX_FMT_RGB565LE; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB555_LE: return AV_PIX_FMT_RGB555LE; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I420: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I422: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I444: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_444A: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA444P; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I440: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV440P; > >> > >> I'd break those lines. > > > > I can run uncrustify to break it, is that the outcome you'd expect? > > > >>> +/* case AOM_IMG_FMT_I42016: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P16; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I42216: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P16; > >>> + case AOM_IMG_FMT_I44416: return AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P16; */ > >> > >> Why is this commented out? > > > > I should just remove it, thanks for reminding me. > > > >>> +aom_img_fmt_t ff_aom_pixfmt_to_imgfmt(enum AVPixelFormat pix) > >>> +{ > >>> + switch (pix) { > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_RGB24: return AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB24; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_RGB565BE: return AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB565; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_RGB555BE: return AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB555; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_UYVY422: return AOM_IMG_FMT_UYVY; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUYV422: return AOM_IMG_FMT_YUY2; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YVYU422: return AOM_IMG_FMT_YVYU; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_BGR24: return AOM_IMG_FMT_BGR24; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_ARGB: return AOM_IMG_FMT_ARGB; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_BGRA: return AOM_IMG_FMT_ARGB_LE; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_RGB565LE: return AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB565_LE; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_RGB555LE: return AOM_IMG_FMT_RGB555_LE; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I420; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I422; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I444; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA444P: return AOM_IMG_FMT_444A; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV440P: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I440; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P10: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I42016; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P10: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I42216; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P10: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I44416; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P12: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I42016; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P12: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I42216; > >>> + case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P12: return AOM_IMG_FMT_I44416; > >> > >> same > > > > Ok. > > If you feel like tearing down the bikeshed and building a different one: I > think this would be nicer as a single table with the two functions reading > it, rather than two functions which duplicate a lot of the information. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel