Em Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:26:58 +0200 (CEST) "Hans Verkuil" <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > 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. Parallel port will still be there for some time. However, Parallel port webcams are less common. > 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. Maybe Alan Cox might still have some of those cams. Some of those old cameras were used on specialized hardware, like microscopes. Maybe it still could make sense to support them, but somebody with the hardware should convert to V4L2 and test with the real hardware. Otherwise, I agree that the better is just to remove the parallel port camera drivers from newer kernels. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
