Xiaofan Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Joerg> It's puzzling. First, libftdi uses the old libusb-0.1 interface
> libftdi-1.0 uses libusb-1.0. Well, then I'm confused the more ... I've been grabbing a git snapshot, and it was using the 0.1 API. If I understand you right, you've got two different trees, so I probably got the wrong one. Anyway, as my main objective was to get FT232H support, and the FT232H is mentioned in the (post-0.19) 0.1 code, too, it should still work I think. (But I'll see to repeat that with the libftdi-1 code base as well.) >> B.t.w.: How common are Full-Speed hubs. Is debugging worth the effort? >> And do you really bitbang? Why not MPSSE? > I do not think it is that common now. It is good to be used a debugging > tool. So I think this is not a high priority fix. For me, I do have a good number of fullspeed hubs around. My only highspeed hub is used whenever I need to plugin a mass storage device, but everything else (in particular, all that microcontroller stuff) runs on fullspeed hubs. My entire point is: if a FT232H device on a fullspeed hub runs at *much* lower speed than a FT2232D one *on the same hub*, something must be fishy. The expected behaviour would be that it achieves approximately the same speed. And yes, with "bitbanging", I was just referring to the net result on the AVR microcontroller that is being programmed; all this is done through the MPSSE, of course. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
