Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:27:06 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Christian Gusenbauer <c47g@gmx.at> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone working on V4L2 for BSD? Message-ID: <425C3D2A.8030005@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200504122253.01522.c47g@gmx.at> References: <425C18A2.8010807@elischer.org> <20050412193149.GA15619@puff.jakemsr.gom> <425C2C39.8050607@elischer.org> <200504122253.01522.c47g@gmx.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Gusenbauer wrote: >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? > > yes I'd like to look at what you got done.. I'm also trying to contact the Linux developers about the ability to use their .h file directly. having a V4L interface available will make such things as gnomemeeting and SANE porting a LOT easier. >Ciao, >Christian. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?425C3D2A.8030005>