Em 13-06-2011 06:05, Felipe Balbi escreveu: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:43:06PM -0500, Theodore Kilgore wrote: >>> there's nothing in the USB spec that says you need different product IDs >>> for different modes of operation. No matter if it's still or webcam >>> configuration, the underlying function is the same: capture images using >>> a set of lenses and image sensor. >> >> True, true. But I will add that most of these cameras are Class 255, >> Subclass 255, Protocol 255 (Proprietary, Proprietary, Proprietary). > > well, if the manufacturer doesn't want to implement UVC for whatever > reason, it's his call ;-) This argument is bogus. UVC were implemented too late. There are lots of chipsets that are not UVC-compliant, simply because there were no UVC at the time those chipsets were designed. Still today, newer devices using those chipsets are still at the market. This is the same as saying that we should not support USB 1.1 or USB 2.0 because they're not fully USB 3.0 compliant. Mauro. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
