Hello Justin, > > 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. I completely agree on that. Plus: v4l lacks a good and complete documentation like v4l2 has -- "putting the bits of V4L2 that are missing or better into V4L" as Alan proposed won't help here either. Who is going to change and add all the stuff to the current "v4l documentation"? Alan? Just think of that: no more "how to write a simple v4l application" mails in the future... ;-) Userland programmers are no kernel hackers -- a good interface should have a clean and decent documentation. > -justin CU Michael.
