To me, the described behaviour appears to be a bytefield v2.2 package bug. Maybe I'm getting things wrong and standalone v1.2 is bugged as well. Or it's just me doing things wrong.
Typesetting this minimal example
\documentclass{standalone}
\usepackage{bytefield}
\begin{document}
\begin{bytefield}[bitwidth=2.1em]{2}
\bitheader{0-1} \\ \bitbox{1}{0} \bitbox{1}{2}
\end{bytefield}
\end{document}
using pdflatex produces a too tightly cropped bitfield:
Top border is much too tight, other borders are a bit too tight as they cut a framed pixel. I consider this a bytefield bug and tried to find a workaround.
As suggested in this question, the standalone border can be increased which reveals the bytefield numbers at least partly:
\documentclass[border=1pt 0pt 1pt 10cm]{standalone}
produces this:
which solves the problem at bottom/left/right border, but not at the top border. This appears to be a standalone bug.
Using \documentclass[border=2mm]{standalone} extends all borders as expected. The current workaround would be to extend all borders by approximately 2mm to make the bytefield numbers visible.
For me, this workaroud is very unfortunate, since I am creating lots of PDFs using the standalone class in an automated environment - only a few of them being bytefields. Thus, I would have to increase all borders since the bytefield environment does not accept border as optional parameter.
Is any other workaround known?

