Hey Miah, On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 10:51, Miah Gregory wrote: > Incidentally, I do realise that you can apply backported patches for v4l2 to > 2.4 kernels, but in my estimation, that raises the bar for access to our > driver substantially. > > I suppose, were v4l2 to be properly backported, and integrated into the > 2.4 source tree, that might provide many with more of an incentive to > upgrade their apps/drivers. While I agree with your other point, I don't agree here. The fact that v4l2 isn't in the kernel is not a reason to hold off driver development for it. We all know that v4l2 is going to be part of 2.6.0.This means that by the time of 2.6.0, all v4l drivers should have been ported to v4l2. If that hasn't been done, that'll be yet another reason for application developers to hold off v4l2 application development, and that'll mean that this is effectively our own fault. We'd better get v4l2-stuff ready as soon as possible, this'll only speed up the acceptation of v4l2 by app developers and, in the end, users. You can stuff all v4l2-specific stuff up in #ifdef HAVE_V4L2 ... #endif, so users that don't use v4l2 (vast majority) won't even notice it. Neither does it mean that you should drop v4l1 - almost nobody does that. Ronald -- Ronald Bultje <rbultje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Linux Video/Multimedia developer
