Anyone working on V4L2 for BSD?
julian at elischer.org
Wed Apr 13 11:14:36 PDT 2005
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>Alexander Leidinger wrote this message on Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 14:31 +0200:
>>Julian Elischer <julian at elischer.org> wrote:
>>>I'm considerring it.. It looks quite doable. (assuming we can get
>>>compatible include files
>>>without copyright problems.)
>>>For compatibility we'd probably want to keep all the V4L prefixes etc.
>>>Is anyone else playing with this?
>>There was a discussion about something like this a while ago... a, I see you
>>participated in it too:
>Yes, I did... and unless V4L2 managed to change a lot.. It's API is
>still years behind what we should have... The reason I haven't said
>anything is that I didn't want to attempt to derail any work that someone
>might be doing.. Yes, V4L2 is not a very good api, but as others have
>pointed out, it makes portability easier... Plus, I haven't spent any
>time on VideoBSD recently, since I've gotten sidetracked by other
>projects... (Though if I can get ATI to give me specs for their HDTV
>PCI card, I might spend some more time on it...)
My sugestion is that we make V4L2 an alternative interface to a videoBSD
Think "netgraph for video" with a V4L2 frontend for apps and a v4l2
backend for drivers.
The difference is that the framework would interpret all the ioctls etc
instead of the
drivers themselves. The drivers MAY attach using a V4L2 interface, but
the requersts they
get MAY or MAY NOT have come from the clients. In the middle we have
modules that do simple format conversion, resynching, snipping, and the
pass the stream out to a userlandeditor and get it back again, for
Some requests fromt the clients may be passed through to the drivers.
Some may not.
>So, if you just want Linux compatiblity, go for it... If you want a
>real usable video API, then send me comments and look at the VideoBSD
>stuff I have done...
More information about the freebsd-multimedia