libftdi Archives

Subject: Re: Should ftdi_read_data_submit_to() be a new call?

From: Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Uwe Bonnes <bon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: libftdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 19:16:19 +0200
On 04/27/2011 11:11 AM, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> I already said:
>> But thinking and discussing longer, you are right, let's keep the old
>> behaviour.

Thanks, patch reverted.

> 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...

Well, I don't need it and I'd like to concentrate on libftdi-1.x.
It would be easier for everyone to just have one code base so
unless someone really needs this I think we can live without it.

Cheers,
Thomas

--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

Current Thread