Re: RFC: Drop V4L1 support in V4L2 drivers

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 03/19/2010 04:49 PM, David Ellingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab@redhat.com>  wrote:
>> The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably without
>> a large users base. So, basically legacy hardware. So, their removals make sense.
>>
>
> In many ways the above statement is a catch 22. Most, if not all the
> v4l1 drivers are currently broken or unmaintained.

Ack, which is why I've been working actively on moving them all over to
gspca, but I need hardware access for that, see below.

However this thread is about removing support for v4l1 applications, and
there are actually still quite a few v4l1 apps out there, so we should
not do that!

 > However, this does
> not mean there are users who would not be using these drivers if they
> actually worked or had been properly maintained. I know this to be a
> fact of the ibmcam driver. It is both broken and unmaintained. Because
> of this I'm sure no one is currently using it. I happen to have a USB
> camera which is supposedly supported by the ibmcam driver.
> Unfortunately, I have not the time nor expertise needed to
> update/fix/replace this driver, though I have previously tried. If
> someone on this list is willing to collaborate with me to make a
> functional v4l2 driver to replace the existing ibmcam driver, I'd be
> more than willing to expend more time and energy in doing so.

Great! I've bene looking for someone with such a cam. As you may know
I've been slowly porting over all the remaining v4l1 usb webcam drivers
to gspca (removing a lot of code duplication and making them v4l2 drivers).

By far the easiest way to get the driver for this camera converted to
a gspca using v4l2 driver is to send it to me, would you be willing to
do that ?

Regards,

Hans