On Thu 17-08-06 22:30:30, Thomas Koeller wrote: > On Thursday 17 August 2006 17:31, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Well, I guess v4l api will need to be improved, then. That is still > > not a reason to introduce completely new api... > > The API as implemented by the driver I submitted is very minimalistic, > because it is just a starting point. There's more to be added in future, > like controlling flashes, interfacing to line-scan cameras clocked by > incremental encodes attached to some conveyor, and other stuff which > is common in industrial image processing applications. You really do If it is _common_, we definitely need an API. We do not want the next driver to reinvent it from scratch, right? -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
