libftdi Archives

Subject: Re: Claiming devices has no effect under Linux

From: Thomas Klose <thomas.klose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: libftdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:05:38 +0200
Am Mittwoch, den 06.10.2010, 09:24 +0200 schrieb Thomas Jarosch: 
> On Tuesday, 5. October 2010 19:15:29 Thomas Klose wrote:
> > If I understand right, your solution does not address this issues. It is
> > just an opinion, but I think the only clean solution would be to remove
> > this function call at all. If the user wants to detach a driver, he
> > should do it by himself, e.g. by calling the usb_detach function. For
> > convenience maybe helper functions (ftdi_detach_sio(),
> > ftdi_detach_sio_desc(), et cetera) could be implemented.
> Before the detach code was in place, I've received an email about every week
> why their code was unable to open the FTDI device (which was clearly
> listed by lsusb). I don't want to go back to that again...

I understand your point of view. However, this solution may even worsen
the problem over time: If people are not forced to use proper VID/PIDs
for their devices, they won't do it. They may not even be aware, there
is an problem. This kind of approach can potentially lead to a very
unpleasant situation. The ACPI hell which resulted from a similar
work-around-attitude is one example.

Regards, Thomas

libftdi - see for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

Current Thread