On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Uwe Bonnes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hallo, > > we all exchanged our point of views. Now we need to come to some conclusions: > - should we give ftdi_usb_open_dev() more options how to handle different > situations? > Possible situations are: > -- ftdi_sio is loaded, should we unload or abort
My vote is to unload. If not, the user should not use libftdi in the first place. > -- some other application has claimed the device via usbfs, should we force > claiming and continue or should we exit Either way. I would more inclined to exit and I tend to think it is a current libusb bug so that you can force claiming. > -- If we unloaded ftdi_sio, should we attach it again on exit Either way. > - Should we make all these decisions configurable? I am okay with having the 2nd and the 3rd to be configurable. > What we can do depends however on what information libusb provides us. At > the moment we can distinguish between ftdi_sio and usbfs... > Actually you do not really know the name of the attached driver with the current libusb-1.0 API, only libusb-0.1 API can give you the name of the kernel driver attached. -- Xiaofan -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
