Gerd Knorr wrote: > > in the kernel, that reason goes away. Once V4L2 is in the kernel, v4l > > support can later be made optonal, and eventually be phased out. > > v4l has been _the_ interface for years. And it probably takes at least > one more year until v4l2 shows up in a stable kernel (2.6). I don't > think we can phase out v4l1 ... Yes, it has been _the_ interface for years, but it still remains hopelessly incomplete and poorly defined. I don't think there is anybody who will disagree that this is simply a BTTV interface that was slightly tidied up, and shoved into the kernel, for lack of anything better. It will hopefully go the same way as i2c-old, which had approximately the same origin, and suffered from many of the same shortcommings (actually even worse, but you get the idea)... -justin
