On 21 Aug 2012 14:17 , Markus wrote:
> It even looks as if they just added a simple SDK helper function,
> while the functionality was always available. You first have to
> retrieve the entry point of course.
Sorry, got it wrong. While the above mentioned things are valid,
the new reset functiona
On 21 Aug 2012 01:52 , Pete Batard wrote:
> Will you at least be available to test libusbx' fxload with your
> platform? The obvious goal for spending time on this effort is, provided
> the FX3 becomes one of the leading USB 3.0 development target out there,
> to promote libusbx among developers
On 2012.08.20 12:44, Markus wrote:
> That sounds like the optimum solution. I've been reluctant to come
> up with this in the first place due to lack of time (as I have
> to keep my focus on developing firmware for the FX3). I doubt I
> won't be able to go for it in the foreseeable future, as long
On 11 Aug 2012 02:53 , Pete Batard wrote:
>
> Note however that there's going to be a change of plan with regards to
> FX2/FX3 support, as I have just completed the porting of fxload [1] from
> linux-hotplug [2] to libusbx, with the aim of including it as a sample.
> As a matter of fact, it is
> On 2012.08.10 05:10, Orin Eman wrote:
>> I'd do something like the following:
>>
>> #include
>> #if defined(WIN32) && !defined(PATH_MAX)
>> #define PATH_MAX (MAX_PATH+1)
>> #endif
>>
>> and use PATH_MAX like you suggested.
>
> I'll try to do that.
Or go the other way round and remove the need f
On 2012.08.10 05:10, Orin Eman wrote:
> I'd do something like the following:
>
> #include
> #if defined(WIN32) && !defined(PATH_MAX)
> #define PATH_MAX (MAX_PATH+1)
> #endif
>
> and use PATH_MAX like you suggested.
I'll try to do that.
Note however that there's going to be a change of plan with
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jon Sturm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Markus wrote:
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > my answers became a bit longer than intended. Here's my 5 cent,
> > but generally, I'd leave the decision to you:
> >
> >> Now, this being said, I don't have that much of an issu
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Markus wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> my answers became a bit longer than intended. Here's my 5 cent,
> but generally, I'd leave the decision to you:
>
>> Now, this being said, I don't have that much of an issue bumping the
>> limit, but 4K seems awfully large for a file pat
Hi Pete,
my answers became a bit longer than intended. Here's my 5 cent,
but generally, I'd leave the decision to you:
> Now, this being said, I don't have that much of an issue bumping the
> limit, but 4K seems awfully large for a file path. Would 512 bytes
> be OK with you?
I'm perfectly ok wi
On 2012.08.08 14:58, Markus wrote:
> I just applied your patch to 1.0.12 and can't see any problems
> with it. From a number of simple tests, it looks as if it
> behaves well.
Great. Glad to hear I haven't broken anything... ;)
> I'd however still keep a decent path length for the file name
> (bi
Hi Pete,
sorry for the late reply, I've been away for the last week.
I just applied your patch to 1.0.12 and can't see any problems
with it. From a number of simple tests, it looks as if it
behaves well.
I'd however still keep a decent path length for the file name
(binary_name), as 256 is no
Hi Markus,
Since I got my hands on an EZ-FX2 board (and I can only wish it won't be
long before basic FX3 boards come as cheap as the FX2 ones), I amended
your patch to add support for FX2 firmware upload as well.
I don't think the modifications I added will impact the FX3 upload, but
the ch
12 matches
Mail list logo
