On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM, David Ellingsworth <da...@identd.dyndns.org> wrote: > Yes it is an old camera, but that does not mean there aren't people > out there who still own cameras which would otherwise be usable if the > driver worked. And sure people could just buy another camera.. but why > replace hardware that's obviously not broken?
Because of the cost of keeping a driver in the tree for an old piece of hardware that almost nobody has, where there is no developer willing to maintain it, at the cost of preventing removal of a bunch of old common infrastructure which increases the maintenance cost of all the drivers that people do care about. In a perfect world, it would be great to support every piece of hardware under the sun until the end of time. In reality though, with limited developer resources, we sometimes have to decided that supporting certain archaic hardware that isn't popular "just isn't worth it". Removing all the old V4L1 cruft will make currently maintained drivers cleaner, faster and simpler to understand and implement, and less likely to have bugs. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
