On Thursday, 8. September 2011 20:25:44 Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> Thomas> Regarding the baudrate branch, should we just "fix" up the
> Thomas> result for the AM type chips and merge it or do you want to
> Thomas> tweak it some more if someone comes up with a real working AM
> Thomas> type chip?
>
> The AM is really an artefact. I hopefully didn't touch the code, so the
> results should remain as they where before. The compare references is
> what i _think_ is right, but I have no mean to test. The chip itself is
> EOL.
Ok
> So my incentive to further work on it is not high at the moment. And it
> shouldn't hinder us to move on. So best let's remove the offending cases.
> Any objections?
Sorry, I've just seen you appended a patch to remove them
after I fixed them up. Let's keep the fixed ones for now.
I also verified we didn't change the way the AM baudrate calculation works:
- Checked out the current "master" branch
- Kept the "test/baudrate.cpp" file from the "new-baudrate-code" branch
- "./test_libftdi --run_test=Baudrate/TypeAM*" shows everything is fine
I'm going to merge the new baudrate code now.
Thanks for your work on this, Uwe.
Cheers,
Thomas
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
