On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Rich von Lehe <rhvonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > In lieu of set_configuration in this case (there is only one config), > one process would claim_interface 0 and the other process would > claim_interface 1. I have a suspicion that the underlying > implementation in Libusb is locking the device with the first call to > claim_interface, since I get permission errors when making that call > from the 2nd process. I saw an email on this list saying as much for > the OpenBSD implementation, though I'm on Windows/WinUSB. > > Is it best to go to the Libusb code and see if I can figure if that's > really the case? >
If you use Windows, you probably want to use libusbx. http://libusbx.org/ On the other hand, WinUSB has several limitation and the above may be one of the limitations. http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/libusbx/index.php?title=Windows The next version of libusbx will integrate the support of libusb0.sys and libusbk.sys which may lift the limitations. You can take a look at the libusbx roadmap here. http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/libusbx/roadmap The Windows backend codes are here and you can find autoclaim mentioned in some places. http://libusbx.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libusbx/libusbx;a=blob;f=libusb/os/windows_usb.c;hb=HEAD I'ved CC libusbx-devel so that Pete or others there can give you a better explanation. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
