Uwe Bonnes wrote: >> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Plante <[email protected]> writes: >> Michael> I admit I haven't been looking at libftdi-1.0 much yet, but >> Michael> does libftdi-1 not yet support non-default libusb contexts >> Michael> (i.e., libusb_context * != NULL)? >> >> Yes. >> >> But libftdi doesn't yet hold the context. Why do you need the context?
Because I have multiple FTDI chips, each associated with one plugin thread, and each associated with one libftdi-0.1 context. The devices and threads are essentially independent, and I can't have them stepping on one another's settings in the context. That, and if I can keep it clean by giving each its own context, I run less risk of running into synchronization bugs, if any remain. Plus, the various linked lists in libusb are traversed more quickly. Etc. In short, I generally think that if people are able to use separate libusb contexts, they should, and that the default context should only be used in 2 cases: 1) quick and dirty test apps 2) apps that only talk to one usb device (ftdi or otherwise) IMO... >> If the context is needed, we must add the context to libftdi context and >> fill and use the libusb context in the appropriate calls. Yes, I agree. However, if it's easier, I could fill the member in manually like I have to do with some (unrelated) members in the libftdi-0.1 context. The context could default to NULL in ftdi_init(). (I am using the C API) >> Michael> (That will be a stumbling >> Michael> point before I can upgrade from 0.1... >> >> Should I prepare a patch? You could, but you don't need to. When I get around to upgrading, I can do it. It will be at least a couple more months before I'm ready. I just happened to see the "NULL" in your patch and thought to ask about it. Thank you, Michael -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
