[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 001/244] Add a new channel layout API
george at nsup.org
Tue Dec 31 17:17:49 EET 2019
Anton Khirnov (12019-12-29):
> In the API namespace (function names) or the parameter names? For the
> latter, it can be changed at any time without problem and I don't really
> care much. For the former, the header is called channel_layout and I'd
> lean towards keeping that aligned with the namespace. Not a very strong
> opinion though.
I meant both, but of course the names of the public symbols (and the name
of the header, which is not set in marble) are what we are stuck with
and requires careful planning. I do not insist on it, but it is
something to consider.
In fact, I just noticed that you used chlayout at some places in the
public API instead of channel_layout.
> Hmm, this was apparently added by Vittorio so I'm not sure, but would
> assume it refers to AV_CHAN_SILENCE.
It will need to be clarified before it's done.
> I am aware that it is different, but making the struct dynamic would
> make using it significantly more cumbersome. Given how long we have
> lived with the bitmask, I do not expect there to be a significant need
> to add more fields to it.
The bitmask was constraining, but it was very simple: we can accept to
be constrained as the cost of simplicity. This new API is not very
simple: if it is constraining, the it is not worth it.
> Plus, it can still be extended by adding a new AV_CHANNEL_ORDER types
> and a corresponding new union member.
Not all extensions can be done like that.
> Given that a copy of this struct is embedded in every single frame, I'd
> rather not add extensive dynamically allocated metadata to it. Those
> should rather appear in some higher level API.
What higher level API? Maybe we need to reconsider embedding the
structure in every single frame, and possibly using reference counting
> They also can (and are, in the patchset) used as
> We might want to add a macro for that.
Ok. Or just mention it in the doc.
> That still requires error checks and adds considerable complexity.
This is not true, please have a look at the API I have proposed, since I
have posted it on the mailing-list:
As you can see, all the complexity is inside the implementation. For the
code that uses the API, it actually makes things simpler.
In particular, with your version, error checking must be done twice:
once in av_channel_layout_describe() and once when calling it. With
AVWriter, the first one is unnecessary.
> There is no hiding from the fact that the string size is not bounded, so
> either you make up an arbitrary limit and hope it's enough (and have it
> fail for special cases), or you do dynamic allocation with error checks.
All that is taken care of by the API and hidden from the user.
> Yes. The point of the API is to provide a logical mapping between
> audio channels and their indices in a stream. That way, the callers that
> only read the channel layout do not (typically) need to know how exactly
> it is stored.
> This function is the canonical way of answering the question 'what
> semantics does n-th channel in this stream have?', so the callers don't
> need to handle ORDER_NATIVE vs ORDER_CUSTOM, or do any messing with
Ok. But my point is: is the question "what semantics does n-th channel
in this stream have?" really relevant?
(Similar with strings: the question "what is the n-th character" is
hardly ever relevant, but people keep asking it and implementing APIs to
> I do not agree. Duplicated channels in a layout are expected to be a
> fringe thing and how you handle them highly depends on the specific use
> case. I expect a typical caller will want to disregard that possibility
> and just take the first channel of each semantics.
> So I do not believe a dedicated function for this makes sense. We could
> always add something later though, if it turns out to be necessary.
I think you are making a mistake. I think that as soon as it will be
technically possible, we will see cases with duplicated channels. And I
know that some filters will do exactly that as soon as they are ported
to this new API.
Therefore, I insist, we need a clean user interface to handle duplicated
> Again, yes. E.g. you are decoding an audio stream with multiple channels
> and want to know which is the 'front left' one. This function gives you
> the canonical answer to that.
Same as above: I do not insist, but I doubt that "which one is the front
left" is a very interesting question.
> It turns out to be useful in flacenc, matroskaenc and mlpdec
> conversions. And of course can be potentially useful to the callers.
> Since we are not deprecating the AV_CH_FOO macros, I do not see a
> problem with having it public.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel