On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Rafael Diniz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Einar, > I must disagree with you. > > If you take a look at the old videodev.h, there is this statement: > > * Video for Linux version 1 - OBSOLETE > * > * Header file for v4l1 drivers and applications, for > * Linux kernels 2.2.x or 2.4.x. > * > * Provides header for legacy drivers and applications > > > And now it's gone. > There is no such device you're saying that have only v4l1 driver.
I have one. And under ubuntu kernel 2.6.28 it is supported only by a v4l1 driver and not v4l2. In a newer kernel there may be V4l2 for this, but I am not sure that there does not exist a v4l1 device which is important for some user. > V4L1 is > not present in kernel for a long long time (only the V4L1 compatibility > layer was there). > Anyone using kernel 2.4? > IMHO, the correct way to support V4L1 is using libv4l. You cant support any device that hasnt V4L2 driver through libv4l. If I was sure that all devices in use have V4l2 driver, I recommended to remove v4l1 support from cinelerra. If I was sure that v4l1 and v4l2 support in cinelerra are functionally equivalent I recommended not to use libv4l. Currently I have only very quick overlook about v4lx stuff in cinelerra and can say that it has to be rewritten or removed. > Of course we could commit videodev.h inside our cinelerra tree in order to > get rid of the libv4l dependency for those still using kernel <= 2.6.37 or > that don't need V4L support at all. Never put any system header into an application tree or never try to define any system structure in an application. You get only troubles. I have commit 2a14a56ab25668a417ae5e41a7c91321fb6d0867 in my tree which coditionally compiles V4L1 support. Einar _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
