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
