Hi,
On 09/05/2010 10:56 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:56:54 +0200
Hans de Goede<hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that using one control for both status leds (which is what we
are usually talking about) and illuminator(s) is a bad idea. I'm fine
with standardizing these, but can we please have 2 CID's one for
status lights and one for the led. Esp, as I can easily see us
supporting a microscope in the future where the microscope itself or
other devices with the same bridge will have a status led, so then we
will need 2 separate controls anyways.
Hi Hans,
I was not thinking about the status light (I do not see any other usage
for it), but well about illuminators which I saw only in microscopes.
Ah, ok thanks for clarifying. For some more on this see p.s. below.
So, which is the better name? V4L2_CID_LAMPS? V4L2_CID_ILLUMINATORS?
I think that V4L2_CID_ILLUMINATORS together with a comment in the .h
and explanation in the spec that this specifically applies to microscopes
would be good.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
I think it would be good to have a V4L2_CID_STATUS_LED too. In many drivers
we are explicitly controlling the led by register writes. Some people may very
well prefer the led to always be off. I know that uvc logitech cameras have
controls for the status led through the extended uvc controls. Once we have
a standardized LED control, we can move the logitech uvc cams over from
using their own private one to this one.
Once this is in place I would like to build some framework in to gspca
for supporting this control in gspca (the control would be handled by the core,
and sub drivers would have an sd_set_led function).
While at it could you write a proposal / patch for adding this control to the
spec as well ?
--
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
