Cull unnecessary media::VideoFrame::Formats from the enum.

Cull unnecessary media::VideoFrame::Formats from the enum.
This removes the easy ones: RGB555, RGB565, RGB24, RGBA, NV12, and ASCII.

BUG=108306
TEST=videotestmatrix is still as happy as it was.


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=131682

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2012-04-10 21:26:26]

Gary: please review for remoting/
Andrew: please review everything.
Dale: FYI.

[Wez, 2012-04-10 21:29:03]

remoting/ LGTM

[scherkus (not reviewing), 2012-04-10 21:32:31]

LGTM w/ nits

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame.cc
File media/base/video_frame.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame...
media/base/video_frame.cc:34: return NULL;
do we expect clients to handle NULL from CreateFrame() or is this a CHECK()able
offence?

I'd vote for the latter!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame.h
File media/base/video_frame.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame...
media/base/video_frame.h:33: INVALID = 0,     // Invalid format value.  Used for
error reporting.
OCD nit: should these // be aligned or something because they're not!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
File remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc:85: const int bytes_per_pixel = 4;
doesn't VideoFrame offer this info?

[garykac, 2012-04-10 21:33:18]

On 2012/04/10 21:26:26, Ami Fischman wrote:
> Gary: please review for remoting/
> Andrew: please review everything.
> Dale: FYI.

LGTM

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2012-04-10 22:01:07]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame.cc
File media/base/video_frame.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame...
media/base/video_frame.cc:34: return NULL;
On 2012/04/10 21:32:31, scherkus wrote:
> do we expect clients to handle NULL from CreateFrame() or is this a
CHECK()able
> offence?
> 
> I'd vote for the latter!

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame.h
File media/base/video_frame.h (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/media/base/video_frame...
media/base/video_frame.h:33: INVALID = 0,     // Invalid format value.  Used for
error reporting.
On 2012/04/10 21:32:31, scherkus wrote:
> OCD nit: should these // be aligned or something because they're not!

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
File remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc:85: const int bytes_per_pixel = 4;
On 2012/04/10 21:32:31, scherkus wrote:
> doesn't VideoFrame offer this info?

Only as row_bytes(0)/width(), and I didn't think that's better than this.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-04-10 22:04:47]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/fischman@chromium.org/10024072/7001

[scherkus (not reviewing), 2012-04-10 22:05:39]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
File remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10024072/diff/1/remoting/base/encoder_...
remoting/base/encoder_row_based.cc:85: const int bytes_per_pixel = 4;
On 2012/04/10 22:01:07, Ami Fischman wrote:
> On 2012/04/10 21:32:31, scherkus wrote:
> > doesn't VideoFrame offer this info?
> 
> Only as row_bytes(0)/width(), and I didn't think that's better than this.

that's what I thought :\

SGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-04-10 22:25:15]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/fischman@chromium.org/10024072/14

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-04-11 00:17:18]

Change committed as 131682