greg at kroah.com
Thu Jul 9 07:38:04 PDT 2009
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:11:35PM +0200, Falco Hirschenberger wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs schrieb:
> > Hi,
> > Falco Hirschenberger:
> >>> Or are you referring to the fact that the device should show up as a
> >>> proper v4l2 device to userspace, and not need a custom userspace program
> >>> interface?
> >> This would also be an option, but I suppose the v4l2 Interface is not
> >> flexible enough for these complex cameras.
> > Why shouldn't it be? You can create your own control commands if the
> > ones in the standard are not sufficient, and it supports a variety of
> > video standards.
> I must confess I'm have not much experience with the v4l2 API. Perhaps
> it's really an option. But that's only a question of the user interface.
> it's more important to write a reliable driver and think about the
> interface afterwards.
Heh, no, please don't. The interface influences how the driver is
written in many different ways. So please consider it.
And I agree with the others, v4l2 is the correct interface, and it
should be able to handle this type of camera just fine.
More information about the devel