Re: [PATCH 1/1] V4L: stk11xx, add a new webcam driver

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>]

Em Ter, 2007-05-29 às 21:04 +0200, Thierry Merle escreveu:
> 
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab a écrit :
> >   
> >   
> >>> Hi Mauro and Markus,
> >>> Just to summ up what I understood we need:
> >>>
> >>> What do we need in userspace, only for v4l (dvb is not concerned):
> >>> - colorspace translations
> >>> - filters that be done in hardware if the selected hardware can, 
> >>> otherwise software plugin
> >>> - decompression algorithm like stk11xx or usbvision (the decompression 
> >>> algorithm is in kernelspace since it is of linear complexity but shall 
> >>> be moved to userspace)
> >>>       
> >
> > Yes. The first focus, IMO, should be the last one.
> >
> >   
> 
> OK, so we must open the V4L2 API to add a custom pixel format.
I don't think we need to change the API. The API already exports the
format, as a fourcc-like info. We just need to add newer codes as
they'll be added into kernel.

> While brainstorming, I thought it would be funny to create userspace 
> drivers like FUSE based projects do.
> Applications would see nothing but a new device driver to access, all 
> decompression algorithm would be in userspace.
> The path from the application to the v4l2 kernel driver:
> [Application]<->[/mnt/video0 (created by FUSE-like userspace 
> lib)]<->[/dev/video0 (created by kernel v4l2 driver)]
> There are limitations that I don't know, but this would be transparent 
> for the applications.

This seems to be an interesting approach.

> > Yes, it is possible. In fact, some devices currently work by generating
> > a common audio and video stream. The driver may just send the packet
> > as-is, leaving to the userspace API the function to de-merge and
> > synchronize audio and video.
> >   
> So we have a userspace lib that will demux/uncompress device driver output.
> This lib will know each device driver particularities to know how to 
> demux/uncompress in a a/v format that will be understood by the application.

Yes. However, we should try to do loose coupling whenever possible, to
keep maintainership of the "library"(*) as simple as possible.

(*) With this approach, it seems that it will turn into a helper daemon,
instead of just a library.

Cheers,
Mauro