On 8/5/05, Lonni J Friedman <> wrote:
> On 8/5/05, Jonathan Stewart <> wrote:
> > On 8/5/05, Lonni J Friedman <> wrote:
> > > On 8/5/05, Jonathan Stewart <> wrote:
> > > > Hello list
> > > >
> > > > I have been playing around with my kernel and PWC driver, and i
> > > > currently have a non-working setup. In the past, my camera has
> > > > worked, so i am confident it is merely a software issue.
> > > >
> > > > As stated in the topic, i am running Linux 2.6.12.3, completely stock.
> > > > (as found on kernel.org). I am using the PWC driver that came with
> > > > the kernel. (is this wrong?)
> > >
> > > yup, is known to be broken. somewhat less broken is 10.0.0.7 on the
> > > PWC website. By less broken I mean that you can get a usable picture,
> > > but the colors tend to be all out of whack.
> > There's seriously a known-broken driver in the kernel? That seems
> > very strange. And also something that should be fixed (maybe it will
> > be for 2.6.13?)
>
> doubtful. there are some IP issues involved.
This is bizarre. What is the purpose of placing a known broken driver
in the kernel, regardless of the issue that causes it to be broken?
It seems logical to me that any issue preventing a driver from
functioning should be solved before placing a driver in the kernel,
not afterwards.
> >
> > I should use the 10.0.7a driver from the PWC website then?
>
> if you want something remotely useful, yes.
Yes, for the record, the 10.0.7a driver worked just fine when compiled
as a module. Works exactly as advertised. Which makes me happy. But
i still feel a bit burned because i thought that a driver placed in
the kernel would be ready for using, that i wouldn't have to use an
external driver, since there's one in the kernel.
--
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
pwc mailing list
http://lists.saillard.org/mailman/listinfo/pwc
|