Michael Hunold wrote: > > Hello Justin, > > > The bug is fixed in the latest videodevX > > (http://bttv-v4l2.sourceforge.net). Please note, however, that qtvidcap > > has broken v4l1 support, and while it works with bttv, it does not work > > with the v4l1 compatibility layer in videodevX. > > I just downloaded your latest code and checked > that it still compiles with my latest driver > -- no problems. > > But I have a question concerning the so-called > "compatibility layer": can this piece > of code, that does not run with most v4l1-specific > code anyway, be simply removed? Well, it's not a "so-called" compatibility layer. It is a correct V4L API implementation. Unfortunately, most apps out there aren't v4l apps, but bttv apps pretending to be v4l apps. These apps rely on some driver specifics that are not guaranteed by the v4l API. > (At least it does not run with my saa7146 driver > for more "intelligent" applications beyond > tv-viewing...) > > I think that we all agree, that the bttv is the > most important driver at the moment. There are some people who may dissagree ;-> > My opinion: > > Your v4l2- and Gerd's v4l1-driver share the same > code basis, so a user with a bt8x8-card should > use the v4l1-driver if he has a legacy v4l1-only > application that he still wants to use. > > For any other application that supports v4l2, > he should use the v4l2-driver anyway. > > (Sorry Gerd! 8-) > > CU, > Michael. I'm not going to dig that far back in the archives, but I think the origin of the compatibility layer (and later vdeodevX), was the requirement for software compatibility when v4l2 made it into the kernel. I'm pretty sure (Alan: correct me if I'm wrong) that these requirements initially came from Alan Cox. Perhaps he could put in a word or two here on his ideas? -justin
