Re: [Libusbx-devel] question on libusb_bulk_transfer and libusb_fill_bulk_transfer

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:22 PM, John Chen wrote: > Hi, > > The device I am working right now demanding sending and receiving data in > unsigned int, and every bit has to be in exact position, in windows it is > easy as the DeviceIoContorl takes a void pointer, but in libusb, both > libusb_bulk_tr

[Libusbx-devel] question on libusb_bulk_transfer and libusb_fill_bulk_transfer

Hi, The device I am working right now demanding sending and receiving data in unsigned int, and every bit has to be in exact position, in windows it is easy as the DeviceIoContorl takes a void pointer, but in libusb, both libusb_bulk_transfer and libusb_fill_bulk_transfer only takes unsigned char*

Re: [Libusbx-devel] Gearing up for the libusbx v1.0.13 release

On 2012.09.06 11:04, Hans de Goede wrote: > In the mean time if you're convinced that the libusb using application > part (so the external) API is solid, I'm fine with doing this for just > windows for now I'm never convinced that anything I code is solid. Ever. That's why I subscribe to RERO. :)

Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusb-win32 and libusbK support has now been pushed to mainline

On 2012.09.06 15:02, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > Since you have not released the update Zadig yet. Well, I said 24 hours, which, due to various circumstances, I very much meant. But now Zadig v2.0.1.158 has been released... Not sure when I'll release libwdi, as there's one last issue that I'd like to

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs v2

v2. To keep it short, besides a link to libusbx.org, I very much want to have a 2012 year mentioned in there, to show that we're actively updating the library. That's why I tried to combine the whole thing in the copyright line. So, from now on, you're gonna have my name there. Regards, /Pete

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On 2012.09.06 19:51, Orin Eman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Hans de Goede > A preferable (to me) alternative would be an anonymous union, but > I was unsure that all compilers would accept it. > > > An anonymous union would work for me That's ugly and IMO that's pretty m

Re: [Libusbx-devel] More Windows/Linux discrepancies: reading from EP1IN

> As long as your buffering can handle that, you're fine, but it's > dangerous to make assumptions about bulk throughput... > Understood. It's my job as library designer to ensure I do everything I can to ensure performance is optimal assuming ideal conditions (i.e if there is slowness anywhere, i

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > I don't think you should break existing code until libusbx 2.0. > I think you should add: > > > > #define MaxPower bMaxPower > > > > > > That was my initial thought to, but MaxPower is too generic of a > na

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 08:20 PM, Orin Eman wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Hans de Goede > wrote: > > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > p...@akeo.ie>> wrote: >> >> This is #26: >> https://github.com/libusbx/__**libusbx/issues/26

Re: [Libusbx-devel] More Windows/Linux discrepancies: reading from EP1IN

Chris McClelland wrote: > The EP2&6 pair seems to require quad-buffering in order to get the best > throughput (I measure 43MiB/s when quad-buffered and about 33MiB/s when > double-buffered),... Yes. You should also be aware that those speeds are highly dependent on the quality of the host contro

Re: [Libusbx-devel] More Windows/Linux discrepancies: reading from EP1IN

You sir are a genius. Changing the descriptors to report 512 bytes fixes the problem. I'm aware of the limitations of EP1, but happy with it nevertheless. I basically have a pair of very fast data channels (EP2OUT & EP6IN) for exchanging data with an FPGA, and a pair of much slower channels (EP1O

Re: [Libusbx-devel] More Windows/Linux discrepancies: reading from EP1IN

Chris McClelland wrote: > Basically, the supplied FX2 firmware (in libusbx/fx2/fw/firmware.hex) > enumerates with two IN endpoints, EP1IN and EP2IN. Endpoint 1 is the poor stepchild in the FX2. The functionality is limited, the buffering is fixed and limited, and it uses different registers from

[Libusbx-devel] More Windows/Linux discrepancies: reading from EP1IN

OK, I made more progress with my Windows/Linux discrepancies, and I have now hit another problem. I haven't totally ruled out the possibility that it's another FX2 firmware bug, but I have narrowed it down to a pretty simple example on the host and FX2 side: http://www.swaton.ukfsn.org/temp/libusb

Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusb-win32 and libusbK support has now been pushed to mainline

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Pete Batard wrote: >> OK, IMO, the best way to address that last issue we have with libusb0 as >> composite device is by modifying the libusb0 inf file to create a Device >> Interface GUID during installation. >

Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusb-win32 and libusbK support has now been pushed to mainline

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Pete Batard wrote: > OK, IMO, the best way to address that last issue we have with libusb0 as > composite device is by modifying the libusb0 inf file to create a Device > Interface GUID during installation. > > In this case, this is really a one liner change in libw

Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusb-win32 and libusbK support has now been pushed to mainline

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Pete Batard wrote: > Just an update. I now have a partial patch for composite support, that > appears to works fine with WinUSB and libusbK, but still doesn't > properly set the interfaces for libusb0. Just checked the latest git and it indeed solved the problems I

Re: [Libusbx-devel] Gearing up for the libusbx v1.0.13 release

On 06/09/12 01:03, Pete Batard wrote: > Since we need to gear up for the 1.0.13 release, I have just pushed > back a few of the tasks that we had planned but that I don't really > see happening over the next few days, into 1.0.14. These include: > > - Adding the WinCE backend (Note to Toby: Yes,

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On 06/09/12 11:07, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > > wrote: >> >> This is #26: https://github.com/libusbx/__libusbx/issues/26 >> , but do

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 09:16 AM, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > 2012/9/6 Pete Batard : >> I also took the opportunity to update the copyright in our most public >> header, as we might as well promote libusbx there. > > The goal of a copyright is not to promote something but to assign the > copyright to a le

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > wrote: > > This is #26: https://github.com/libusbx/__libusbx/issues/26 > , but doesn't include BOS/EP > Companion. > > Note tha

Re: [Libusbx-devel] Gearing up for the libusbx v1.0.13 release

Hi, On 09/06/2012 02:03 AM, Pete Batard wrote: > Since we need to gear up for the 1.0.13 release +1 For moving towards a 1.0.13 release. > I have just pushed back > a few of the tasks that we had planned but that I don't really see > happening over the next few days, into 1.0.14. These include:

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

2012/9/6 Pete Batard : > I also took the opportunity to update the copyright in our most public > header, as we might as well promote libusbx there. The goal of a copyright is not to promote something but to assign the copyright to a legal entity. libusbx.org has no legal existence and can not be