[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-video
Subject:    Re: [video4linux] New API spec
From:       Richard Guenther <zxmpm11 () student ! uni-tuebingen ! de>
Date:       1998-07-27 13:04:13
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi!

I completely agree with you - compatibility is not an issue
(if its not easy to achieve).

One thing apout the proposal:
It would be nice to have the bt848 capability to swap bytes
of the PIX_FMT included in the FMT_FLAGS, i.e.
FMT_FLAG_WSWAP_EVEN, FMT_FLAG_WSWAP_ODD,
FMT_FLAG_BSWAP_EVEN, FMT_FLAG_BSWAP_ODD

Richard.

On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, Bill Dirks wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
> 
> >> Alan, is there a deadline for when we should have the new spec
> hammered
> >> down?
> >
> >A week or so would be nice. Im hoping we dont change anything
> drastically
> >and cause breakages.
> 
> 
> I think we can make some very worthwhile improvements, but it will cause
> breakages. But they will be easy to fix.
> 
> We can keep the old bttv spec in place separate from Video for Linux if
> you need the legacy bttv stuff to continue working.
> 
> I posted an early draft of some proposed changes to the spec under the
> subject "New API spec proposals". It includes, for example, an improved
> video image format structure. Obviously adopting that will break
> existing code, but, jeez, it's not hard to adapt code to the new
> structure!
> 
> Most of my proposed new or changed data structures have 'reserved'
> fields in them, so in the future changes can be made without breaking
> anything. So part of the proposal is about avoiding this very delimma.
> In the long run it's worth it to make these kinds of changes before tons
> of applications have been written/ported.
> 
> There will never be better time to fix the API. Now is our chance. I
> know it's painful to have to modify working code. I have to modify my
> driver too. It's not fair to the people who will be writing (and
> porting) v4l applications and drivers in the future for us to ship a
> spec that we know has problems we can easily fix but don't because we
> don't want to break a couple early programs. I think everybody
> understands that the current spec is experimental and subject to change.
> 
> I would really like to see Video for Linux be a solid, well-thought-out,
> high quality foundation for all kinds of video applications. Video
> applications on personal computers have been novelty or niche items in
> the past, but I think they will become more and more commonplace and
> important in the near future. There are many applications that could be
> applied to Linux if the foundation were there. Linux is highly respected
> for many kinds of applications; it should be true for digital video too.
> 
> Have a look at the proposals. If everyone agrees the proposals are a bad
> idea, I'll drop it. Or else we can work out something we all agree on.
> Keep in mind that *if* the initial spec is well designed and
> sufficiently extensible we can add more features and refinements later
> without breaking code anymore. And that will mean we don't have to solve
> every problem this week.
> 
> Bill.
> 
> ------------
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@phunk.org with the
> line "unsubscribe video4linux" without the quotes in the body of the
> message.
> 

--
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
PGP: 2E829319 - 2F 83 FC 93 E9 E4 19 E2 93 7A 32 42 45 37 23 57
WWW: http://www.anatom.uni-tuebingen.de/~richi/

------------
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@phunk.org with the
line "unsubscribe video4linux" without the quotes in the body of the
message.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]