On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Uwe Bonnes
<bon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> we all exchanged our point of views. Now we need to come to some conclusions:
> - should we give ftdi_usb_open_dev() more options how to handle different
> situations?
> Possible situations are:
> -- ftdi_sio is loaded, should we unload or abort
My vote is to unload. If not, the user should not use libftdi in the
first place.
> -- some other application has claimed the device via usbfs, should we force
> claiming and continue or should we exit
Either way. I would more inclined to exit and I tend to think it is a current
libusb bug so that you can force claiming.
> -- If we unloaded ftdi_sio, should we attach it again on exit
Either way.
> - Should we make all these decisions configurable?
I am okay with having the 2nd and the 3rd to be configurable.
> What we can do depends however on what information libusb provides us. At
> the moment we can distinguish between ftdi_sio and usbfs...
>
Actually you do not really know the name of the attached driver
with the current libusb-1.0 API, only libusb-0.1 API can give you the
name of the kernel driver attached.
--
Xiaofan
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
