On Thursday, 8. September 2011 20:25:44 Uwe Bonnes wrote: > Thomas> Regarding the baudrate branch, should we just "fix" up the > Thomas> result for the AM type chips and merge it or do you want to > Thomas> tweak it some more if someone comes up with a real working AM > Thomas> type chip? > > The AM is really an artefact. I hopefully didn't touch the code, so the > results should remain as they where before. The compare references is > what i _think_ is right, but I have no mean to test. The chip itself is > EOL.
Ok > So my incentive to further work on it is not high at the moment. And it > shouldn't hinder us to move on. So best let's remove the offending cases. > Any objections? Sorry, I've just seen you appended a patch to remove them after I fixed them up. Let's keep the fixed ones for now. I also verified we didn't change the way the AM baudrate calculation works: - Checked out the current "master" branch - Kept the "test/baudrate.cpp" file from the "new-baudrate-code" branch - "./test_libftdi --run_test=Baudrate/TypeAM*" shows everything is fine I'm going to merge the new baudrate code now. Thanks for your work on this, Uwe. Cheers, Thomas -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
