[Barry-devel] Cross compiling for the ARM linux

2011-03-15 Thread naveen_bij
Hi We cross compiled and loaded the barry(static) and libusb(dynamic) libraries on to the board. But when I run the usbclient application on the board we are getting below error Alignment trap: usbclient (517) PC=0xf9bc Instr=0xe1dc00b2 Address=0x0004140f FSR 0x001 Bus error Please sugge

Re: [Barry-devel] Cross compiling for the ARM linux

2011-03-15 Thread Toby Gray
On 15/03/2011 12:31, naveen_...@yahoo.co.in wrote: > Hi > > We cross compiled and loaded the barry(static) and libusb(dynamic) libraries > on to the board. Excellent. Glad to hear you got it working. > But when I run the usbclient application on the board we are getting below > error > > Alignme

Re: [Barry-devel] call for testers: socket level changes

2011-03-15 Thread Toby Gray
Hi Chris, Those changes looks good. The asynchronous callback version of the raw channel didn't initially work, but it was just a case of pulling out all the complex semaphore stuff that it had been doing which is now handled more sensibly in the socket class. I've made the necessary changes i

[Barry-devel] Libusb 0.1 vs. libusb 1.0

2011-03-15 Thread Toby Gray
Hi, I've been trying to track down an issue with brawchannel where it will stop sending any data to the blackberry. This happens if the device is left connected with a mostly idle raw channel for anywhere between 1 minute and 2.5 hours. I believe that I've tracked the issue down to a limitatio

Re: [Barry-devel] Libusb 0.1 vs. libusb 1.0

2011-03-15 Thread Chris Frey
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:28:39PM +, Toby Gray wrote: > I believe that I've tracked the issue down to a limitation of the libusb > 0.1 API. If the bulk read gets data just as it's about to timeout then > libusb 0.1 just drops that data and returns the timeout. There's nothing > libusb 0.1

Re: [Barry-devel] call for testers: socket level changes

2011-03-15 Thread Chris Frey
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:15:16PM +, Toby Gray wrote: > Those changes looks good. The asynchronous callback version of the raw > channel didn't initially work, but it was just a case of pulling out all > the complex semaphore stuff that it had been doing which is now handled > more sensibly

Re: [Barry-devel] the Storm workaround

2011-03-15 Thread Chris Frey
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:04:31PM +0100, Nicolas wrote: > You can find in my repository small fix. Thanks! I cherry picked it in. I added another change to the Debian packaging that requires 0.9.6 of libgcal for the desktop packages, but in checking Debian Squeeze's version (0.9.5) it has the f

Re: [Barry-devel] call for testers: socket level changes

2011-03-15 Thread Chris Frey
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:47:59PM +0100, Nicolas wrote: > Unfortunatly, I have some regressions: > - bjdwp KO with all my devices I've made a change to SocketBase::PacketJVM() to go back to non-automatic sequence packet checking, just for that function. Could you give it another test? I don't h

Re: [Barry-devel] call for testers: socket level changes

2011-03-15 Thread Chris Frey
Thanks again Nicolas and Toby, for your quick response and testing. I believe the password bugs are fixed now. And the btool error display bug, which was from a different change, not socket related. There's still one sequence packet issue with multi-database backups with barrybackup, but that's