>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Thomas> On Wednesday, 13. April 2011 14:06:33 Michael Plante wrote:
>> Thomas Jarosch wrote: >> On Wednesday, 13. April 2011 04:40:33
>> Michael Plante wrote: >> > Dunno what to say about libftdi-1.0, but
>> my concern was with >> > libftdi-0.1/git, which still doesn't seem to
>> have 3b92d47 reverted.
>> >>
>> >> As far as I can see from the archive, the discussion was still
>> going >> on?
>>
>> I thought Uwe had agreed, but we can wait and see what advice he has.
Thomas> Uwe, any comment on this one?
Yes, in my mail
Subject: RE: libftdi: Make ftdi_read_data() honor usb_read_timeout
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:02:44 +0200
I already said:
> But thinking and discussing longer, you are right, let's keep the old
> behaviour.
But I also asked for:
> Is it worth introducing to 0.18 something like ftdi_read_sized_data() that
> reties for some time? Timeout should not be ftdi_read_timeout, as it is
> used in another context. Otherwise user function expecting a known number
> of bytes must implement their own timeout handling...
--
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
|
