From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933059AbWF3TOu (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:14:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933069AbWF3TOt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:14:49 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:52438 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933140AbWF3TOt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:14:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] [2.6 patch] VIDEO_V4L1 shouldn't be user-visible From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Jon Smirl Cc: Adrian Bunk , v4l-dvb-maintainer@linuxtv.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <9e4733910606291759t140e1ea7yf14cca699988cd50@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060629192124.GD19712@stusta.de> <1151612317.3728.34.camel@praia> <20060629210829.GG19712@stusta.de> <1151617411.3728.66.camel@praia> <9e4733910606291759t140e1ea7yf14cca699988cd50@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:14:34 -0300 Message-Id: <1151694874.2006.7.camel@praia> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.7.2.1-4mdv2007.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Qui, 2006-06-29 ās 20:59 -0400, Jon Smirl escreveu: > On 6/29/06, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Also, on V4L side, the V4L1 api is stopping V4L development. V4L API 2 > > is already at kernel since the beginning of kernel 2.6 series, and fixes > > several flaws at the old api (V4L1 API were designed on 2.1 series). > > Still now, most applications still implement only V4L1, and people do > > submit newer v4l1 drivers to us. > > > > We do really go ahead, making V4L2 API the standard. > > I don't think anyone would complain about dropping V4L1 if the people > pushing V4L2 were to port the 25 or so drivers that depend on V4L1 to > the V4L2 API. We are working on it. The issue will be someone to test all those drivers for the obsolete hardwares. > As long as those V4L1 dependent drivers are around > people are going to want to keep using V4L1. You may want to consider > building some in-kernel compatibility APIs into V4L2 to make porting > those drivers easier. Most of changes are just trivial. Just one will requre more work, since it is related to newer mmap methods on V4L2. > Cheers, Mauro.