Billy Biggs wrote: > Michael Hunold ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >>please be warned: I'm a strong v4l2 advocate. 8-) >> > > Hey. :) > > I'm worried about v4l2 because if it was clearly 'the right thing' it > would already be in the kernel. So, there must be some reason every > time I say 'v4l2' in certain circles that people go 'uuugh'. > > But if this situation has changed, please let me know. Doesn't seem > like it: the bttv driver only now has initial support for v4l2, and it > doesn't support the VBI API. So, I'm just confused. > > If everyone thinks that v4l is dead and v4l2 forever, great, I'll > switch. Please let me know now. But I'm not going to support both. > > I'd love to hear some more opinions. But my conversations on IRC > still show me three camps: > > 1) let's fix v4l. I hear a big no from this list so far.
I tried for a long time to do this, then gave up and wrote bttv2... Apparently, it is quite a big deal to change an API that is used in the standard kernel tree (full backwards compatibility muts be maintained). > 2) let's go v4l2. I hear a few yays from this list. :) Definitely going to happen (sometime). > 3) both are broken, let's start over. I've definitely heard that > before too. What is broken in v4l2? -justin _______________________________________________ Video4linux-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
