On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time. >>> The >>> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July >>> 2009. >>> >>> I think it is time that we remove the V4L1 compatibility support from >>> V4L2 >>> drivers for 2.6.35. >> >> Do you mean just removing V4L1-specific code from V4L2 drivers, or >> removing >> the V4L1 compatibility layer completely ? > > The compat layer as well. So the only V4L1 code left is that for V4L1-only > drivers. > I'm against this we have customers using the compat layer. Aside of that the compat layer doesn't hurt anyone, newer more serious applications are written with v4l2 only actually. > This means that V4L2 drivers can only be used by V4L2-aware applications > and can no longer be accessed by V4L1-only applications. > >>> It would help with the videobuf cleanup as well, but that's just a >>> bonus. >> >> Do we still have V4L1-only drivers that use videobuf ? > > No V4L1-only drivers use videobuf, but videobuf has support for the V4L1 > compat support in V4L2 drivers (the cgmbuf ioctl). So when we remove the > compat support, then that videobuf code can be removed as well. > that's just a bad implementation then and just should be fixed up the compat layer can handle this quite elegant. -Markus -- 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
