On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Ludovic Rousseau <ludovic.rouss...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/5/29 Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com>: >> Nope, a libusb_device is just a software struct representing the info >> we could get from the OS about the device without actually opening >> it, or talking to the device. An opened device is represented by >> a libusb_handle. >> >> What I'm saving is opening the device (which under Linux requires rights >> the app often won't have), and slow and expensive io to the device, which >> includes waking it up from sleep, thus burning battery on portable devices. > > OK. I understand now. > I agree with the new calls libusb_get_vendor_string/libusb_get_product_string.
If this possible across different OS, I like idea as well. I see it useful for projects like libftdi and OpenOCD. > I am not a strong supporter of the use of usbids but why not. Same here. usb.ids is good for utilities like usbutils or libusbK's klist, but maybe a bit too much for libusb. But if the efforts are not that much, I do not see it as a big problem. The only issue is whether the user can replace a newer version of usb.ids or not. If allowed, where to put this file? -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
