Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:52:55 +0200 From: Christian Gusenbauer <c47g@gmx.at> To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Anyone working on V4L2 for BSD? Message-ID: <200504122253.01522.c47g@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <425C2C39.8050607@elischer.org> References: <425C18A2.8010807@elischer.org> <20050412193149.GA15619@puff.jakemsr.gom> <425C2C39.8050607@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hi! On Tuesday, 12. April 2005 22:14, Julian Elischer wrote: > Jacob Meuser wrote: > >I'd much rather see the problems fixed than a shim added to it. > >how about working about multiple frame buffers? that's probably need > >for many V4L2 programs. IMO, it would be better (maybe even easier) > >to rewrite bktr with a V4L2 interface than to try to add V4L2 to it. > > I wasn't planning on either, but rather making a v4l2 framework to allow > drivers and utilities to hook to each other.. whether the bktr driver > gets rewritten > or shimmed is an orthogonal question :-) Well, that's exactly what I wrote some years ago. There's on one hand the v4l2 framework and on the other hand there's a driver (in my case, it's a bktr one) which registers itself at the v4l2 framework. Then, the latter creates the device nodes and the applications use these nodes to get in contact with the driver. Julian, I think that's what you are looking for, isn't it? Ciao, Christian. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCXDUt73Wh/GTgh8wRAt6SAKDAWYKbfSajT/uMys8xo21igKwKTACfYUOR jTqcNml4ybWg+qkg8DEK1mw= =v4sO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504122253.01522.c47g>