I recently bought a Xirlink (IBM) PC Camera and after reading as much documentation as I could find compiled the 2.4.3 kernel with usb support and the ibmcam driver. According to the information at http://www.linux-usb.org/ibmcam/ and my /proc/bus/usb/devices, my camera is a Model 2, supported by the driver that comes with the kernel. The module loads fine and at least thinks its being used,
niels:/usr/doc/kernel-doc-2.4.3/Documentation/usb# lsmod Module Size Used by ibmcam 23920 1 pcnet32 11536 1 via82cxxx_audio 17120 1 ac97_codec 7808 0 [via82cxxx_audio] when I have xawtv running, but for the life of me I cannot get any images from the thing. I know the computer is talking to the camera because the light on the camera lights up every time I try to use it, but I get consistent errors no matter what I do. I'v tried various programs but none work and xawtv gives the most verbose errors so I'll give the results of that. I'v loaded the ibmcam module with various videosize settings, and tried to match that with what xawtv expects: niels:/# modprobe ibmcam videosize=1 niels:/# xawtv -remote -geometry=352x288 -bpp 8 This is xawtv-3.43, running on Linux/i686 (2.4.3) x11: remote display (overlay disabled) wmhooks: netwm /root/.xawtv:1: error: no section no infrared remote support available ioctl: VIDIOCMCAPTURE(0,fmt=0,size=0x0): Invalid argument ioctl: VIDIOCMCAPTURE(0,fmt=5,size=64x48): Invalid argument v4l: oops: got sigalarm ioctl: VIDIOCSYNC(0): Interrupted system call ioctl: VIDIOCMCAPTURE(0,fmt=1,size=64x48): Invalid argument ioctl: VIDIOCMCAPTURE(0,fmt=7,size=64x48): Invalid argument grab: no match for: 384x288 32 bit TrueColor (LE: bgr-) ioctl: VIDIOCMCAPTURE(0,fmt=7,size=64x48): Invalid argument the -remote option is to turn overlay off which insisted on giving an error as well. It seems that xawtv is stubborly trying to capture images (or video, whichever I try once in the program itself) at 384x288 and 32 bit color, despite my explicit command line request that it not do so. Obviously I don't understand whats goin on here... That sigalarm doesn't look friendly either... Any help? Thanks, -Dan
