On Thu, 27 May 2010, Pawel Osciak wrote: > Hi, > > >Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > >No idea whether this is a worthy and suitable topic for this meeting, but: > > > >V4L(2) video output vs. framebuffer. > > > >How about a v4l2-output - fbdev translation layer? You write a v4l2-output > >driver and get a framebuffer device free of charge... TBH, I haven't given > >this too much of a thought, but so far I don't see anything that would > >make this impossible in principle. The video buffer management is quite > >different between the two systems, but maybe we can teach video-output > >drivers to work with just one buffer too? Anyway, feel free to tell me why > >this is an absolutely impossible / impractical idea;) > > We also use v4l2-outputs for our display interfaces and for that we have > v4l2-subdevices in a framebuffer driver. Although we have had no need for > such a translation layer per se up to now, the idea seems interesting. Interesting, but sorry, don't quite understand "we use v4l2-outputs" and "in a framebuffer driver" - so, is it a framebuffer (/dev/fbX) or a v4l2 output device driver or both? Which driver is this? Is it already in the mainline? > I would definitely be interested in a general discussion about framebuffer > driver - v4l2 output device interoperability though and can share our > experience in this field. Yes, please, do, it would be very much appreciated! Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
