Stephen Davies wrote:
>
>>Am I on a limb with v4l2?
>>
>
> Perhaps this is the wrong question. Maybe the right one is "am I on a
> limb with bttv2"?
>
> Is v4l2 still the direction for video capture API?
> How do I compare bttv and bttv2, especially as bttv now gets v4l2
> compatibility?
Answering this as the author of bttv2:
1) bttv2 itself has a limmited lifespan. From now on, I will just be
doing maintenance and bug fixes, no new development. So, banking on
bttv2 isn't a good thing.
2) v4l2 is a much better API than v4l, and is definitely the way to go.
Since the API is better, there are a lot fewer (hopefully none!)
driver quirks - if your application works with bttv2 it _should_
(eventually, once a few last API aspects have been cleared up) work with
bttv just as well.
So, stick with v4l2, but don't bank on bttv2 hanging around for too much
longer!
-justin
_______________________________________________
Video4linux-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
