Closed pradkrni closed 1 year ago
The value of the pic_order_cnt_lsb shall be in the range of 0 to MaxPicOrderCntLsb − 1, inclusive.
MaxPicOrderCntLsb = 2^( log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 + 4 ) The value of log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 shall be in the range of 0 to 12, inclusive.
if you want to use input parameter , need a value range check .
The value of the pic_order_cnt_lsb shall be in the range of 0 to MaxPicOrderCntLsb − 1, inclusive.
MaxPicOrderCntLsb = 2^( log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 + 4 ) The value of log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 shall be in the range of 0 to 12, inclusive.
if you want to use input parameter , need a value range check . Understood. Yes this is requied. if(seq_param.seq_fields.bits.log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 > 12) seq_param.seq_fields.bits.log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 = 12;
Or should intra_idr_period should be limited to lie less than 32768
so that the equation Log2MaxPicOrderCntLsb = ceil(log2(intra_idr_period*2)); becomes 15 . well within the safer limits.
And the value for idr_period =32768 is very big.
simpler one would be if(seq_param.seq_fields.bits.log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 > 12) seq_param.seq_fields.bits.log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 = 12;
Let me know your thoughts.
from my perspective , both ok, even current is ok to be merged with another fix following.
but I still suggest to update the PR, because there are one building failure.
How to check the build failures.
This the proposed fix foe encoding with larger gop. example idr_period 2048.