Billy Biggs wrote:
Michael Hunold (M.Hunold@xxxxxxxxxxx):
please be warned: I'm a strong v4l2 advocate. 8-)
Hey. :)
I'm worried about v4l2 because if it was clearly 'the right thing' it
would already be in the kernel. So, there must be some reason every
time I say 'v4l2' in certain circles that people go 'uuugh'.
But if this situation has changed, please let me know. Doesn't seem
like it: the bttv driver only now has initial support for v4l2, and it
doesn't support the VBI API. So, I'm just confused.
If everyone thinks that v4l is dead and v4l2 forever, great, I'll
switch. Please let me know now. But I'm not going to support both.
I'd love to hear some more opinions. But my conversations on IRC
still show me three camps:
1) let's fix v4l. I hear a big no from this list so far.
I tried for a long time to do this, then gave up and wrote bttv2...
Apparently, it is quite a big deal to change an API that is used in the
standard kernel tree (full backwards compatibility muts be maintained).
2) let's go v4l2. I hear a few yays from this list. :)
Definitely going to happen (sometime).
3) both are broken, let's start over. I've definitely heard that
before too.
What is broken in v4l2?
-justin
