On 2013.04.09 21:45, Tim Roberts wrote: > That's my confusion. If libusbx has (also) claimed the composite > device, then I believe this. If not, then it shouldn't be possible for > the MI_01 driver to learn or access the other interfaces.
Yes, but we want libusbx to behave the same whether we replace usbccgp or not, and in one case, you'll get IF #0 access required to deal with IF #1. Even if it is possible to treat interfaces as independent (which I kinda doubt, as I remember encountering issues with WinUSB when trying just that, and I do believe that's the real reason why we claim larger than we really would like -- but that's about as much as I can remember from code that was written 3 years ago), we'll then have to deal with dissimilar behaviour in libusbx for the same driver and on the same platform, depending on whether WinUSB replaces usbccgp or not. Now, if we think that this is the option we want to go (maybe having libusb0 and libusbK support has changed the deal a bit from the initial work, that was constrained by WinUSB) and if someone (not me) wants to provide a patch that'll make this whole interface mess work better, I'll gladly review it. But otherwise, I think I'll spend my development time somewhere else. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
