Gerd Knorr wrote: > > > > 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. > > Neverless lots of applications use it, and that's why we have to keep > it. The kernel still has a.out support ... And eventually v4l1 will be used about as much as a.out (I hope). v4l1 will stick around, but I'm sure many application developers will start to realise that v4l2 offers them so much more flexibility and control, and much more complete access to the hardware. It is difficult to see people continuing to develop v4l1 apps once v4l2 is in the kernel. > > It will hopefully go the same way as i2c-old, > > i2c-old is something else. It's internal to the kernel. Whenever > a driver uses the old or new i2c code makes no difference for the > API which the applications will see. Well, it wasn't entirely internal, but there weren't very many apps that used it's external API. -justin
