Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Joerg> It's puzzling. First, libftdi uses the old libusb-0.1 interface
> libftdi-1.0 uses libusb-1.0.
Well, then I'm confused the more ... I've been grabbing a git
snapshot, and it was using the 0.1 API. If I understand you right,
you've got two different trees, so I probably got the wrong one.
Anyway, as my main objective was to get FT232H support, and the FT232H
is mentioned in the (post-0.19) 0.1 code, too, it should still work I
think. (But I'll see to repeat that with the libftdi-1 code base as
well.)
>> B.t.w.: How common are Full-Speed hubs. Is debugging worth the effort?
>> And do you really bitbang? Why not MPSSE?
> I do not think it is that common now. It is good to be used a debugging
> tool. So I think this is not a high priority fix.
For me, I do have a good number of fullspeed hubs around. My only
highspeed hub is used whenever I need to plugin a mass storage device,
but everything else (in particular, all that microcontroller stuff)
runs on fullspeed hubs.
My entire point is: if a FT232H device on a fullspeed hub runs at
*much* lower speed than a FT2232D one *on the same hub*, something
must be fishy. The expected behaviour would be that it achieves
approximately the same speed.
And yes, with "bitbanging", I was just referring to the net result on
the AVR microcontroller that is being programmed; all this is done
through the MPSSE, of course.
--
cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
