As Dave Jones said a few weeks ago, "Being a maintainer is hard work. Let's go shopping."
Anyway, it sounds like you've fallen behind on 2.5.x changes a bit, and so have I. However, I do try to keep a summary list of them at http://www.osdl.org/archive/rddunlap/linux-port-25x.html It may be of use to you, except that I'm behind on the USB section. {If anyone wants to keep the USB section up to date, such as at www.linux-usb.org, I'll be glad just to point to that web page. :} And there have been discussions of this stuff. It didn't just happen overnight. ~Randy On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Mark McClelland wrote: | Nemosoft Unv. wrote: | | <snip> | | >Comment #2 (the negative one) | > | >What an utter waste of time. | > | >I'm sorry to say this, and I've thought for a while if I even should | >mention this, but this is how I feel about it. | | Hey, it wasn't my patch. :-) I must admit that I liked the changes | though. V4L drivers are notoriously complex and bloated, and anything to | alleviate that is welcome IMHO. | | >In stead of fixing the | >problems that are there for V4L1, or making a commitment of getting V4L2 | >into the kernel and drivers, you introduce changes for an API that I | >consider out-of-date (though in widespread use) and work for us who write | >the drivers. | Since I don't know the status or plans for V4L2 in 2.5, I won't try to | justify the timing of these changes. This does deploy V4L2 in a more | incremental manner, which is probably a good thing. | >My main complaint is that now I have to keep track of 3 development | >threads: the 2.4 kernel, the 2.5 kernel which literally changes memory | >subsystem every release, and this V4L1.1 interface. | > | >I'm sure there are many good reasons to do this, but the timing sucks | >(more about that below). | | There are probably good technical reasons for having direct access to | fops (potentially fewer races, and easier handling of multiple opens). | | >Oh yes, for the Question: when do you think this will make it into 2.5 (if | >it hasn't already)? | | It's already in 2.5.7-pre1. | | >>As for abandoning 2.4 because of V4L2, you probably won't have to do | >>that completely. The V4L2 "videodevX" driver works with 2.2 and 2.4, and | >>supports both V4L1 and V4L2 drivers and apps. Your in-kernel 2.4 driver | >>will have to be abandoned, of course, but 2.4 users will still be able | >>to use the latest driver from your website. | > | >Yes, but I'd have to make my driver ready for V4L2 (which is only backward | >compatible). And since that isn't in the main kernel yet, we have a | >chicken-and-egg problem... | | Agreed. This is why my ov511 is still a V4L1 driver. With all the talk | of a V4L3 a few months ago, I didn't want to risk writing for any API | that wan't available from kernel.org. | | However, as long as V4L2 retains its compatibility layer when it is | merged into 2.5, we can stick with our current V4L1 drivers until either | the compatibility layer is ripped out, or users begin demanding | V4L2-only features. | | >And by 'abandon' I mean that new features that make it into the 2.5.* tree | >will not be incorported into 2.4.*. Of course I'm not going to pull the | >source code from 2.4... | | Right. I was simply saying that even if new features can't be | incorporated into 2.4, videodevX will allow 2.4 users to play with your | latest driver even after you make the switch to V4L2. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
