Thanks for your suggestions. I'll work in that direction.
On 11 October 2011 07:47, Xiaofan Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Xiaofan Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm thinking a little about how to best get your work into OpenOCD. >>> >>> I think the best way is to start with one driver, and send a patch >>> that changes only that one driver over to use libusb-1.0, but leaves >>> the existing ones untouched. This means that you may need to create >>> some duplicated functionality outside the driver, for drivers which >>> use libusb-1.0, but I think this is OK, it will not likely be any >>> significant amount of code, so be fairly quick to create, and not >>> take much place. Once it is in place, you and others can more easily >>> work on moving other drivers to libusb-1.0 in parallel. It's not at >>> all necessary that you are the only doing that work. >> >> I agree with this approach. >> >> UrJtag can be a reference as well, since it support either libusb-1.0, >> libusb-0.x/libusb-win32, or mix. It also supports either libftdi-1.0 or >> libftdi-0.x. >> http://urjtag.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=urjtag/urjtag;a=tree >> > > I think urjtag's approach is good, to abstract libusb-1.0 and libusb, > as well as libftdi-1.0/libftdi/libftd2xx. > http://urjtag.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=urjtag/urjtag;a=tree;f=urjtag/src/tap/usbconn;hb=HEAD > > > -- > Xiaofan > _______________________________________________ > Openocd-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
