On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:14:52 -0400
Paul Fox <p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us> wrote:
> stefan wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:00:05 -0400
> > pgf at foxharp.boston.ma.us (Paul Fox) wrote:
> >
> > > + // f = ftdi_usb_open(ftdic, 0x0403, 0x6010); // FT2232
> > > + f = ftdi_usb_open(ftdic, 0x0403, 0x6011); // FT4232
> > > +
> > > + if (f < 0 && f != -5) {
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "unable to open ftdi device: %d
> (%s)\n", f,
> > > + ftdi_get_error_string(ftdic));
> > > + exit(-1);
> > > + }
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > been a while since this went in... however the exemption for the -5
> > error (failed to claim the device) was never discussed nor documented
> > ever since. Can you remember why you put it there, Paul?
>
> a while, indeed. that patch is like 117 years old in internet years!
And for that it was an awesomely fast reply, thank you :)
> i've looked at the code i have in my old working directory, and at a
> couple of local copies of ftdi.c that i think i was building with,
> and... i have no clue.
>
> i can only assume the error return was spurious for some reason, but
> i really don't recall. sorry!
NP, I'll just document it that way for now to make clear there are no
good reasons to do it like that. However, I think it might be useful
on OSX or Windows maybe... in any case I don't think it is worth any
potential regressions just to do "the right thing".
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
flashrom@flashrom.org
https://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
