On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:34:07 +0200, Ludovic Rousseau said:
>> Otherwise, for the bMaxPower update, my current preferred proposal
>would be to have user copy/paste the new libusbx descriptor structure as
>is, use that in their app exclusively and then use a cast. This is what
>I am currently pointi
My bad.
I also prefer avoiding struct duplication, on the grounds that it's
cumbersome and cast are better avoided, but without adding the API
define in libusb.h, that's what I saw as least likely to cause issues.
Especially, I don't see a #define MaxPower bMaxPower as something we'd
want to encou
2012/9/15 Pete Batard :
> On 2012.09.15 09:34, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> > I realy do not like this idea. Structures defined by the API should
> > not be redefined by the application. That is the source of more
> > problems later.
>
> We've been through that. This was a typo introduced in libusb
On 2012.09.15 11:42, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Not sure if we really need the last 4 bytes
The last word is the whole point. If we go with major minor only (here 1
and 0), this change is fairly useless for the bMaxPower issue, as pre
and post API change will have the exact same value.
Or maybe you
Hi,
On 09/15/2012 03:41 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> I have now pushed the bMaxPower change to mainline. Before I go 1.0.13-rc1
> however, I think I'm warming up to the idea of having a macro in libusb.h,
> that could be used to uniquely identify API changes.
>
> Basically, I'm thinking of something
2012/9/15 Pete Batard :
> I have now pushed the bMaxPower change to mainline. Before I go 1.0.13-rc1
> however, I think I'm warming up to the idea of having a macro in libusb.h,
> that could be used to uniquely identify API changes.
>
> Basically, I'm thinking of something like:
>
> #define LIBUSBX
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.09.15 02:45, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> Maybe you want to add a note saying that isochronous transfer
>> is also not supported yet even when using libusb0.sys or
>> libusbK.sys.
>
> Good point.
>
>> The other thing is to add NetBSD in the O
On 2012.09.15 02:45, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Maybe you want to add a note saying that isochronous transfer
> is also not supported yet even when using libusb0.sys or
> libusbK.sys.
Good point.
> The other thing is to add NetBSD in the OS support (experimental).
This was mentioned in the 1.0.11 new
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> +* Add libusb0 (libusb-win32) and libusbK driver support on Windows. Note
> that using
> + the libusb-win32 filter driver with composite member devices is not
> supported yet
Maybe you want to add a note saying that isochronous transfer
is a
I have now pushed the bMaxPower change to mainline. Before I go
1.0.13-rc1 however, I think I'm warming up to the idea of having a macro
in libusb.h, that could be used to uniquely identify API changes.
Basically, I'm thinking of something like:
#define LIBUSBX_API_VERSION 0x01001234
where th
10 matches
Mail list logo
