Re: [Mjpeg-users] zoran 0.9.4 driver problem - further follow on

[michael <mi...@wh...>]

Hi!

Thanks for the reply.

> That is a limitation of v4l (1) v4l2 allows several open for one
> device. The zoran driver had a workaround for that problem (to view the
> vieo and record it).

My reading of zoran_driver.c 0.9.4 is unlike 0.8 series it does allow multiple 
users.  It does contain both v4l and v4l2 code so maybe that's why 0.9.4 
allows more than one process to open it.  I guess we are in a transition 
phase here between v4l and v4l2 :-)

> I have had not really problems with the latest CVS versions of the
> driver. It works very reliabel.

I've not tried the cvs - I should and as soon as I have a little time to play 
I will.  I agree - very reliable - zero problems with lavrec.

> That did never happen on my machine. But I dont use KDE.

It's not KDE as such. I suspect  it's any two processes using v4l with one of 
them doing frame capturing - it just happens that, for me, X is the other and 
KDE runs on top of X, I get this with xdm and gdm as well as kdm.  It's only 
when I really push it this shows up or when I leave it going for days/weeks.  
We are already looking at something with a reliability level that I'd never 
dream of under win98.

No doubt that the 0.9.4 driver is a great step forward in terms of solid 
reliable mjpeg capture and 0.8 was already good.  I suspect it's that I'm 
doing something most would consider wierd here.  Probably only a few use the 
v4l capture api on the buz and even fewer are having a 24/7 process 
continuously capturing non mjpeg from boot to shutdown.

It's an itch to scratch.  Something I can live with and work around but a 
challenge to understand what is going on.  It may be that I do not understand 
what limitations the v4l driver has to have and I am asking something of it 
beyond what it is supposed to do.  I'm on a learning curve here :-) and I 
certainly don't want to tread on anyone's toes.

Incidentaly, I have a buz with a zr36057 rather than 36067 so it may even be 
one of the 57's bugs that the 67 was supposed to fix.

Again, many thanks, 



Michael  <mi...@wh...>