Re: Improving kernel -> userspace (usbfs) usb device hand off

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:06:58AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 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.

I would think the small wink at the end was enough to label the reply as
a joke. Apparently not :-)

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux