On Monday 22 June 2009 17:00:53 ext Dongsoo Kim wrote: > OK, what I'm afraid is that even though the device could be opened and > recognized as a v4l2 device but has no capability should be weird. > Actually I'm not sure about this case is spec-in or not. > In my opinion it should be better when the camera interface (or ISP) > has no int device (or subdev) attahced on it, no device node mounted > in /dev or returning ENODEV. But before that, I'm very curious about > why you made in that way. We had to be able to use other slave devices (eg. flash) before attaching the actual camera module. - Tuukka -- 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
