On Fri, Jan 18, 2002, Bill Bland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Greg KH wrote: > > You might want to look at adding gphoto2 support for your camera, > > instead of a kernel driver, as that is probably where that kind of > > support should be (in userspace, not kernelspace.) > > I have to disagree here. The gphoto web page says that gphoto2 doesn't > really support usb cameras - they are supported by the usb mass storage > driver. Even if gphoto2 did support usb cameras I still don't think it > would make sense to add support for mine. All the windows driver does is > make the camera look like a networked drive. I see no reason why the > Linux driver sould do any different.
That's wrong. I wrote the initial USB for gphoto2, using the libusb package I've been working on. It definately speaks USB natively for most cameras. Only some cameras use Mass Storage. Most don't. To be honest, trying to make a non Mass Storage device look like a drive, in the kernel, is bad design. Not only would it be very hacky and kludgy for little gain, you wouldn't be able to use the native features of the camera (such as snapping pictures, altering settings, etc) without an equally hacky or kludgy interface. There is work to provide a gnome-vfs (and presumably KDE as well) interface using libgphoto2 to provide a user space solution to make the camera look like a drive. > Having said that, I think you may have given me a lead. Since all the > other cameras appear to use the usb mass storage driver I think I'll start > there. Hopefuly my camera is just a usb mass storage device that doesn't > quite conform to the standard protocol (which would explain why the mass > storage driver doesn't work for it at the moment). This is very much a possibility. JE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
