[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The major difference is in increased flexibility and stability of > kernel-user space interface. > > On the application side: > * ability to utilize advanced driver features without explicit > knowledge of their behaviour > * wider compatibility without the need for recompile > On the kernel side: > * elimination of interfaced specific headers > On the driver side: > * be compatible with a wide range of applications > * introduce support for new features without the need to modify > kernel interfaces > > The last point is the very important in my opinion. For example, in > current specification, v4l2 has no support for TV-out in graphics cards. > It has no support for setting complex parameters like gamma tables. > Using memory-mapped buffers requires device specific ioctls.
TV-out _is_ supported. Complex parameters are supported through ennumeratable controls. > The goal is to create an interface that does not rely on structures > defined in kernel headers for communication. Possibly a good idea, but memory protection and buffer overrun protection can often be a problem in these implementations. >>(I also doubt that an interface this complex would ever make it into the >>kernel.) >> > > It is not very complex. It is much simpler than software modem driver, > for example. The software modem is a _bad_ example. The interface to the modem is still very simple. > Ultimately these questions are best answered with a sample implementation. > Would you have any other concerns/suggestions ? Not really. Streaming capture will need to be reworked, and the "general" control structure will have to be limmited to make non hardware specific apps possible. -justin _______________________________________________ Video4linux-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
