On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
> On 30.8.2012 4.21, "Pete Batard" wrote:
> >
> >I doubt I'm the only one who'd prefer an API that solves actual
> >problems, such as setting platform specific preferences, over an API
> >that's been over sanitized for the sake of abstraction.
On 30.8.2012 4.21, "Pete Batard" wrote:
>
>I doubt I'm the only one who'd prefer an API that solves actual
>problems, such as setting platform specific preferences, over an API
>that's been over sanitized for the sake of abstraction.
I'm with you on this one.
br Kusti
-
On 2012.08.29 10:34, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> The flags are there for a reason. So maybe it is
> a good idea to provide an API for the users to choose
> the option. Probably for next libusb 1.1... "
>
> On the other hand, such API will have some platform
> specific options and some people may not like
On 2012.08.29 02:30, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> It is great that you found and confirmed the issue. I was thinking along
> this line but had a quick look into the codes but was not able to find this.
Well, you certainly pointed me in the right direction. I just followed
what you pointed your finger to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
>> Now, with regards to where in libusbx or libusbK lies the problem, in
>> xusb, we do call libusb_bulk_transfer() and tell it we expect 36 bytes,
>> which is what K also indicates we recei
