Gerd Knorr wrote: >> BTW: Someone at the ieee1394-devel ml wrote, that a main reason to >> create a new interface (-> the new dv1394 module) was that V4L2 does not >> report dropped frames during capturing. Is this true? If so, that might >> be something to fix before merging into the kernel...? > > That was true for the old v4l interface. v4l2 has timestamps and > sequence numbers for video frame buffers.
Thank's for the reply. So there should be nothing which prevents V4L2 from proving the complete dv1394.o functionality. (They have a slightly different way to manage the transfer buffers, but that' not critical , I think). > > For other comments on the API look check the recent discussions on the > v4l2 api last days. For DV data we likely have to add V4L2_PIX_FMT_DV. > You might also have a look at the current "struct v4l2_timecode", DV > likely is the first one who might use it. If there is something wrong > we should fix it before submitting v4l2 into 2.5.x ... > I don't think that I'm the right one (yet) to find bugs in there, sorry. If I'll really be the one to write an adapter between dv1394.o and videodevX.o, I most likely won't start with the programming until next year ... Regards, Norbert _______________________________________________ Video4linux-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
