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 12:30:18 +0200
Am Mittwoch, den 06.10.2010, 12:12 +0200 schrieb Uwe Bonnes: 
> many developpers here don't do commercial development, and they work on many
> different projects. So applying for a different VID/PID for everybody  is a
> lot of work and FTDI will soon run out of numbers. With the API to open a
> named device, people can live with the default VID/PID. In fact there is
> often only a small task to be done with libftdi, the rest can be done with
> ftdi_sio, so ftdi_sio would need to be loaded for the new VID/PID anyway.

You are right of course! But using the default VID/PID should be a
informed decision with clear consequences. Such a project can detach as
many modules as it wants. But it should not be done automatically by

Please keep in mind: This is just my opinion. I have no illusions about
telling you how to do things. But I think, some of my arguments are
The reason why I care at all is that libftdi is great, platform
independent, free, reliable software and I would like to help improve

Regards, Thomas

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

Current Thread