At 10:06 PM 10/17/2002 -0700, you wrote:
The use of the dev_set_drvdata family of calls. I'm not sure why, but those
seem to keep the driver from being inserted, removed, and reinserted.
Replacing those with the use of private_data field in the usb_interface
struct seems to fix that (I removed
At 11:34 AM 10/21/2002 -0700, John Tyner wrote:
You're actually looking at a bug there. The proc interface for the shutter
(which you don't seem to like) should be setting needsDummyRead. As the
Well, that makes more sense. I'm not against what the proc interface is
trying to achieve so much
require a stand alone vicam-specific executable to change the shutter
speed. I didn't think that was a reasonable expectation.
Is a MODULE_PARM too unreasonable? I agree that the proc interface
provides a simple way to change the shutter speed, but I still think that
it's a lot of code to do a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:55, John Tyner wrote:
The memory should definitely not be allocated when the camera is
initialized. I think there are a few who would throw a fit if your
driver was allocating 320*240*3*2 bytes of data (nearly half a
At 03:55 PM 10/21/2002 -0700, John Tyner wrote:
Is a MODULE_PARM too unreasonable? I agree that the proc interface
provides a simple way to change the shutter speed, but I still think that
it's a lot of code to do a small amount of work. Maybe a standalone app is
too much to ask, but [personally]
Yes, but Joe's was there first, based on the original driver, that's why
I accepted his patch.
I understand that. My code is even based partially on it and wouldn't exist
without the reverse engineering/color decoding information that I found at
his site.
Could you point out the problems in
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but...
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Joe Burks wrote:
I'd hope for keeping just one version in the kernel, otherwise the
companies making distros are going to have a terrible time with
it... There are a couple important things my driver does that John's
doesn't
What
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:12:14PM -0700, John Tyner wrote:
Which brings me to the point of the email (sorry it took so long to get
here, heh). In trying to add the features from mine to the one that got
merged, I'm finding that not only am I removing a lot of debug code and even
some bugs,
I don't know how much Joe knows about all of this, but here goes. :)
I actually felt that I was taking away from the sourceforge guys buy
writing my driver. Like I said (to Greg) before, I actually had no
original intention of posting my driver as Joe and those working with him
actually did a
I'd hope for keeping just one version in the kernel, otherwise the
companies making distros are going to have a terrible time with
it... There are a couple important things my driver does that John's
doesn't, but there is one very important thing that John's driver did that
mine doesn't:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Joe Burks wrote:
I'd hope for keeping just one version in the kernel, otherwise the
companies making distros are going to have a terrible time with
it... There are a couple important things my driver does that John's
doesn't, but there is one very important thing that
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 04:38:12PM -0700, John Tyner wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Joe Burks wrote:
I'd hope for keeping just one version in the kernel, otherwise the
companies making distros are going to have a terrible time with
it... There are a couple important things my driver does
12 matches
Mail list logo
