On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 03:11:35PM +0200, Falco Hirschenberger wrote: > Matthias Urlichs schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > Falco Hirschenberger: > >>> Or are you referring to the fact that the device should show up as a > >>> proper v4l2 device to userspace, and not need a custom userspace program > >>> interface? > >> This would also be an option, but I suppose the v4l2 Interface is not > >> flexible enough for these complex cameras. > >> > > Why shouldn't it be? You can create your own control commands if the > > ones in the standard are not sufficient, and it supports a variety of > > video standards. > > > > I must confess I'm have not much experience with the v4l2 API. Perhaps > it's really an option. But that's only a question of the user interface. > it's more important to write a reliable driver and think about the > interface afterwards. Heh, no, please don't. The interface influences how the driver is written in many different ways. So please consider it. And I agree with the others, v4l2 is the correct interface, and it should be able to handle this type of camera just fine. good luck, greg k-h
