From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56840 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751383Ab1AZJHd (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:07:33 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0Q97X2Y002105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:07:33 -0500 Message-ID: <4D3FE453.6080307@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:07:31 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans de Goede CC: Linux Media Mailing List Subject: Re: What to do with videodev.h References: <4D3FDAAC.2020303@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D3FDAAC.2020303@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Hi Hans, Em 26-01-2011 06:26, Hans de Goede escreveu: > Hi All, > > With v4l1 support going completely away, the question is > raised what to do with linux/videodev.h . > > Since v4l1 apps can still use the old API through libv4l1, > these apps will still need linux/videodev.h to compile. > > So I see 3 options: > 1) Keep videodev.h in the kernel tree even after we've dropped > the API support at the kernel level (seems like a bad idea to me) That's a bad idea. > 2) Copy videodev.h over to v4l-utils as is (under a different name) > and modify the #include in libv4l1.h to include it under the > new name > 3) Copy the (needed) contents of videodev.h over to libv4l1.h I would do (3). This provides a clearer signal that V4L1-only apps need to use libv4l1, or otherwise will stop working. Of course, the better is to remove V4L1 support from those old apps. There are a number of applications that support both API's. So, it is time to remove V4L1 support from them. > I'm not sure where I stand wrt 2 versus 3. Comments anyone? Cheers, Mauro