Re: [V4L] Common V4L1/V4L2 interface layer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



> > Why you want register two minors?  Nothing stops a v4l2 driver to respond
> > to both v4l1 and v4l2 ioctls.  The v4l1 ones can be handled by the driver
> > itself or simply passed to the helper functions in videodev.c.  It can
> > even handle some ioctls the one and some the other way.
> 
> I see what you mean.  The current system is a lot better We may need to
> provide a way for v4l2 to handle a v4l1 mmap differently though.

Thats the most critical.  v4l2 allows some optimizations which are
impossible with v4l1 (because the format is fixed one can easily reuse
risc code for the buffers, ...), thats why I expect that handling v4l1
grabbing natively in the driver works much better than trying to create
some common compatibility layer for it.  Everything else should be easy
to handle with some helper functions.

  Gerd

-- 
Protecting the children is a good way to get a lot of adults who cant
stand up for themselves.		-- seen in some sig on /.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux DVB]     [Video Disk Recorder]     [Asterisk]     [Photo]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Util Linux NG]     [Xfree86]     [Free Photo Albums]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Women]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]

Powered by Linux