libftdi Archives

Subject: Re: suspect typo and submission of demonstration application

From: Robin Haberkorn <haberkorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: libftdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:59:14 +0100
Hi Thomas,

the last patch I've sent breaks backward compatibility somewhat. Especially since CBUSG_DRIVE1 was renamed to CBUSH_DRIVE1. If compatibility matters, we can add a deprecated CBUSG_DRIVE1 constant/define.

Also, the larger function codes (for FT-X) have their own enum now. But since the ftdi_cbush_function enum was not very well suited for setting CBUS functions on FT230X and it was extended only recently, I doubt that many people rely on the old constants.

Regarding the `ftdi_eeprom` changes: Setting CBUS functions on FT232H and FT230X was not really possible in v1.2 -- at least not without hacking. Also, to find out that ftdi_eeprom even supports that means you would have had to read its source code as it wasn't documented. On the other hand, I also renamed the CBUS function names for the "cbusN" options on type R chips, so they match the ftdi.h constant names. So yes, even setting CBUS function codes on type R chips with ftdi_eeprom is not backwards compatible after applying my patch.

Another change in ftdi_eeprom was to flash the chip-specific CBUS function defaults, unless overwritten by one of the "cbusN", "cbushN" or "cbusxN" options. However I don't see how anyone could desire the old behaviour of overwriting the CBUS functions if these options are not specified. Together with the inability to set the CBUS functions on FT232H and FT230X chips properly, this old behaviour seriously limited ftdi_eeprom's usefulness on these chips.

Best regards,
Robin

On 14.01.2015 17:14, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
Hi Robin,

On Wednesday, 14. January 2015 17:09:26 Robin Haberkorn wrote:
On 14.01.2015 11:42, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
Hello Rodney,

On Thursday, 8. January 2015 10:35:14 Rodney Sinclair wrote:
The following appears to be a typo on the Python interface for the
FT230X:
     CBUSG_DRIVE1 should probably be CBUSH_DRIVE_1

True. I also fixed that in the patch I sent yesterday. Also I didn't
mention it. Sorry :-)

I have to take a closer look at your two patches the next days,
especially regarding backward compatibility.

Regarding your other question: The mailinglist is
the right place to post patches :)

Cheers,
Thomas


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


--
Robin Haberkorn
Developer

metraTec GmbH
Werner-Heisenberg-Str. 1
39106 Magdeburg
Germany

haberkorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.metratec.com

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