Hi Uwe, On Wednesday, 31. August 2011 19:31:40 Uwe Bonnes wrote: > appended tar file resends the last 3 pending patches > - Try to inihibit programming EEPROM with data for a different device > and zero EEPROM memory image early (unmodified)
Applied, thanks. > - Rewrite the baudrate calculation, tested for 232R and 232H > (unmodified, tested with a scope on several devices) I've verified the code changes manually and the looked sensible to me. Still this change affects all chips types, so I wrote a unit test for the exisiting code. If I apply your patch, the output changes in some areas a lot. Could you apply your patch and run the unit test? It's done like this: - The unit test gets automatically compiled if the boost unit test framework is found. [cmake only] - You can enter the "test" directory and run ./test_libftdi. Also you can focus on single tests only with this: "./test_libftdi --run_test=Baudrate/Type232HFixedBaudrates" The output of the unit test is not that pretty as I put the actually testing in a generic function. Usually that's a no no, but I didn't want to duplicate the code for every chip type. Maybe a macro can come to the rescue here. > - Use default vendor/product strings for EEPROM when user doesn't > supply some (rewritten for future extensability and correct string > handling) > > and adds 4 patches to let me run Tilmann Hentze's config from the mail > > "ftdi_eeprom and max packet size" with the > > BM_type_chip=true # Newer chips are all BM type > > removed. After programming a FT232R board with the patches applied, I can > see no artefact in the lsubs -v output for the package size. I'll look into the other patches later on. Cheers, Thomas -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
