On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Klose <[email protected]> wrote: > In my opinion, the best solution would be to leave the kernel modules > untouched in the open and close functions. For convenience, functions to > detach and re-attach modules could be introduced (similar to those, > provided by libusb): > > ftdi_detach_kernel_module(), > ftid_detach_kernel_module_desc(), ... > ftdi_attach_kernel_module(), > ftid_attach_kernel_module_desc(), ... > > I realize, that this would break some applications. If you depend on > detaching, you would have to call the detach function first. However, > the change in the code would be minimal. > Maybe this is too drastic and the libftdi users cannot live with this > kind of changes. This is something only you can say.
I agree that you have a point. Let's see what the admin says. > An alternative would be to provide options, how to open the device. I > think this is what Uwe was suggesting in one of his earlier mails. > However, I have no idea, how you intend to do this without changing the > API. So Uwe's suggestion seems to be the best. As for API compatibility, I think the admin will have to decide. I personally do not see that API compatibility that important for libftdi-1.0. To me it is more important to get it right and easy to extend than keep the compatibility with the original libftdi. But I know other people may have different opinions. > In any case, I think the system should be in the same condition if the > device was closed (re-attaching modules if necessary). > I think you have a point here. -- Xiaofan -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
