Re: Improving kernel -> userspace (usbfs) usb device hand off

From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>
Cc: balbi@ti.com, Theodore Kilgore <kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, libusb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	hector@marcansoft.com, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: Improving kernel -> userspace (usbfs)  usb device hand off
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:12:44 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110613131242.GQ3633@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DF60B72.5020509@infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1283 bytes --]

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 #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]