>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Thomas> Hello Uwe, On Saturday, 2. October 2010 17:34:16 Uwe Bonnes
Thomas> wrote:
>> index e33572b..0b19838 100644 --- a/src/ftdi.c +++ b/src/ftdi.c @@
>> -2490,6 +2490,11 @@ int ftdi_eeprom_build(struct ftdi_context *ftdi)
>> case TYPE_BM: output[0x0C] = eeprom->usb_version & 0xff; output[0x0D]
>> = (eeprom->usb_version>>8) & 0xff; + if (eeprom->use_usb_version ==
>> USE_USB_VERSION_BIT) + output[0x0A] |= USE_USB_VERSION_BIT; + else +
>> output[0x0A] &= ~USE_USB_VERSION_BIT; + break; case TYPE_2232C:
Thomas> Thanks for your patch(es)!
Thomas> One thing I noticed: The "use_usb_version" field and
Thomas> "use_serial" fields contain either zero or f.e. 0x10. Without
Thomas> taking a close look at the API implementation, I would expect
Thomas> them to be zero or one.
Thomas> That's also the way the previous eeprom code handled the
Thomas> use_serial field. Could we change that to the old behavior?
So you mean
> + if (eeprom->use_usb_version != 0)
> + output[0x0A] |= USE_USB_VERSION_BIT;
> + else
> + output[0x0A] &= ~USE_USB_VERSION_BIT;
> +
Where a value is a single bit, I decided to set the appropriate bit in the
decoded structure. I think, this is some protection against nonsense values,
set unintentionally. But I can change back to a test for non-zero or one if
you think this is better.
Bye
--
Uwe Bonnes bon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
