> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 09:43 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
>> > I personally think that loosing support for the parallel port
>> > version is ok given that the parallel port itslef is rapidly
>> > disappearing, what do you think ?
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly. If we remove pp support, then we can also remove
>> the bw-qcam and c-qcam drivers since they too use the parallel port.
>
> Maybe I just like keeping old hardware up and running, but...
>
> I think it may be better to remove camera drivers when a majority of the
> actual camera hardware is likely to reach EOL, as existing parallel
> ports will likely outlive the cameras.
For sure. But these are really old webcams with correspondingly very poor
resolutions. I haven't been able to track one down on ebay and as far as I
know nobody has one of these beasts to test with. I can't see anyone using
parallel port webcams. I actually wonder whether these drivers still work.
And converting to v4l2 without having the hardware is very hard indeed.
Regards,
Hans
>
> My PC I got in Dec 2005 has a parellel port, as does the motherboard I
> purchased 2008.
>
> I have a 802.11g router (ASUS WL-500g) with a parallel port. It works
> nicely as a remote print server. From my perspective, that parallel
> port isn't going away anytime soon.
>
>
> <irrelevant aside>
> At least the custom firmware for the WL-500g
> ( http://oleg.wl500g.info/ ) has the ability to use webcams for snapping
> pictures and emailing away a notification. I'm pretty sure PP webcams
> are not actually supported though.
>
> The wireless router surveillance case is probably not relevant though,
> as routers are usually using (very) old kernels.
> </irrelevant aside>
>
> -Andy
>
>
--
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
