On 9.6.2008, at 4.59, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Thanks. I've committed the patch.
Thank you.
The camera would probably win the most broken webcam contest. I assume it has passed the Windows conformance tests, so I'm pretty amazed by the low quality level of the test. This doesn't mean we should not make it work in Linuxthough, otherwise we would be as bad as Microsoft :-)
I guess so, and it also seems to work on Mac with no issues. I wonder if those drivers have some "ignore most features if it's a webcam" mode to deal with these. However the price I paid for the camera converted to euros is something around 4 euros. So I kind of understand they've thrown it out immediately after passing minimal tests, but it's still annoying.
Adding quirks to ignore specific controls is not a good solution. In the long term we will probably need a way to blacklist controls on a per- camera basis.If we can avoid it for now I'll be happy.
I agree with this, the more general the better.
I had yet another look at the descriptors, and I noticed the camera doesn't support any manual white balance control. Having an automatic white balance control to disable the automatic white balance doesn't make much sense if the white balance can't be modified manually as well. A possible fix for the problem would be to ignore all auto controls that don't have a correspondingmanual control. Any opinion on that ?
I think it is a good idea. I had it on my mind at one moment as well, but I thought it might be too radical to implement. So if you think it makes sense, I'm all for it. Just let me know if you have a patch to test and I will give it a go.
Juho
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linux-uvc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/linux-uvc-devel
