Hi,
On 09/09/2010 08:55 AM, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
"Hans" == Hans Verkuil<hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi,
>> - the status LED should be controlled by the LED interface.
Hans> I originally was in favor of controlling these through v4l as
Hans> well, but people made some good arguments against that. The main
Hans> one being: why would you want to show these as a control? What is
Hans> the end user supposed to do with them? It makes little sense.
Hans> Frankly, why would you want to expose LEDs at all? Shouldn't this
Hans> be completely hidden by the driver? No generic application will
Hans> ever do anything with status LEDs anyway. So it should be the
Hans> driver that operates them and in that case the LEDs do not need
Hans> to be exposed anywhere.
It's not that it *HAS* to be exposed - But if we can, then it's nice to do
so as it gives flexibility to the user instead of hardcoding policy in
the kernel.
Reading this whole thread I have to agree that if we are going to expose
camera status LEDs it would be done through the sysfs API. I think this
can be done nicely for gspca based drivers (as we can put all the "crud"
in the gspca core having to do it only once), but that is a low priority
nice to have thingy.
This does leave us with the problem of logitech uvc cams where the LED
currently is exposed as a v4l2 control.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
