Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:37:20 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: some missing bits in multimedia/v4l_compat Message-ID: <20070122043720.A91561@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <45B4A58C.8020907@FreeBSD.org>; from flz@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:52:44AM %2B0000 References: <20070122032640.A90831@xorpc.icir.org> <45B4A58C.8020907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:52:44AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > i notice that ports/multimedia/v4l_compat/files/videodev.h has > > some differences with respect to the linux equivalent, see e.g. > > > > http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/lxr/source/include/linux/videodev.h > > > > e.g. no #define HAVE_V4L1 1 , > > some missing prototypes, and so on. > > > > Any objection if i fill in some of the missing parts ? > > > > Also, any reason not to make a header for videodev2.h as well > > > > http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/lxr/source/include/linux/videodev2.h > > I think no devices on FreeBSD support v4l2 atm but that wouldn't hurt > anyone. > Go ahead. thanks. Actually i believe nothing in the tree supports v4l1 either, so this is mostly (only ?) to let ports (apps and drivers) build. But i also wonder if it wouldn't be the case to make these headers part of the kernel tree. It certainly shouldn't harm to have them generally available, and not just as a port. I learned that many ports (e.g. pwlib, and possibly some of the gnome/kde/whatever toolkits) do check for the presence of the headers and conditionally build parts of them. So you might find yourself with missing support for v4l devices without noticing, and even when later you install the drivers you won't see them. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070122043720.A91561>