On Tuesday, 21. June 2011 11:02:06 Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> Intentional: yes.
> Well thought about: no
:)
> I didn't want to manually shift all values after CBUS_FUNCTION_4 when
> inserting CBUS_FUNCTION_5 to CBUS_FUNCTION_9 after CBUS_FUNCTION_4 and
> not at the end. I didn't think anout the implications.
> What would you propose?
> - Keep the explicit numbers?
Yes, keep them.
> - Add CBUS_FUNCTION_5 to CBUS_FUNCTION_9 after CBUS_FUNCTION_4 and mix
> everything up or add new defines like CBUS_FUNCTION_5 to CBUS_FUNCTION_9
> at the end of the old definitions to keep the old number?
Since the ABI isn't stable yet, we can still tweak it. In the future we have
to wait with renumberings until there's a good reason to break the ABI.
> Otherwise I guess
> 3-libftdi-1.0_One more FT232H related patch.mbox
> 4-1.0_src_ftdi.c_Fix calculation of the Mode Bitfield.mbox
> are not applied because fof the first problem. Let me know if there are
> other problems
No other problem, I was just hiking for some days.
> Thomas> Also I have to figure out how I can easily split the
> multi-patch Thomas> email, "git am" doesn't seem to pick up properly.
>
> I can resend if you request explicit and will in future only attach one
> patch to one mail.
One patch per mail makes things easier to review and apply.
Please resend to me directly.
Cheers,
Thomas
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
