On 2013.04.13 04:59, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
* if I'm contributing time to libusbx development that it would be more
useful if it was working on hotplug (or other features in the next
milestone)
Since hotplug could potentially affect the event handling part, it
is better to work on hotplug first.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Toby Gray wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't realise it was a common discussion point. I was trying
> to avoid doing what I did with the WinCE backend of going ahead and
> implementing something and only talking to the community when it
> was done.
Yes I think this is a go
Toby Gray wrote:
> The only numbers which would probably make sense to others are that we
> noticed that there was a long time between the short packet of the end
> of a transfer and the host issuing the next IN token for that endpoint.
> The gap is multiple milliseconds in length on WinCE, but
On 12/04/13 00:27, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.04.11 16:20, Toby Gray wrote:
>> Rather than trying to optimise how the fake fds are generated and
>> handled, I think the best thing to do is to add improved APIs to improve
>> event handling on platforms which don't have fds and then change the
>> i
Hi,
On 12/04/13 12:49, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2013 05:20 PM, Toby Gray wrote:
>>
>> I see two possible ways of approaching the problem:
>>
>> 1) Add a new type, libusb_event_handle, which either maps to an FD or
>> a HANDLE, as appropriate on each platform. I've attached a first
>> at
On 11/04/13 18:17, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Toby Gray wrote:
>> We've been looking into the performance of the Windows desktop and
>> Windows CE versions of libusbx compared to Linux on the same hardware.
>> The event handling in Windows and Windows CE appears to take
>> considerably longer than for Li
Hi,
On 04/11/2013 05:20 PM, Toby Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've been looking into the performance of the Windows desktop and Windows CE
> versions of libusbx compared to Linux on the same hardware. The event
> handling in Windows and Windows CE appears to take considerably longer than
> for Linux.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> If that's the case, then you may want to check 3 years of libusb mailing
> list archives as well as one year of libusbx, because this topic has
> probably been discussed about once every 3 months on each list.
>
> I think the plan on which we m
On 12.4.2013 2.27, "Pete Batard" wrote:
> I'm getting kind of
>tired of people proposing yet another API, without any details of how
>it's actually going to be implemented for each of our 3 major platforms
>(Linux + OS X + Windows).
I'm with Pete here in that code for all platforms that tries to
On 2013.04.11 16:20, Toby Gray wrote:
> Rather than trying to optimise how the fake fds are generated and
> handled, I think the best thing to do is to add improved APIs to improve
> event handling on platforms which don't have fds and then change the
> internals to not need fake fds.
Oh boy, here
Toby Gray wrote:
> We've been looking into the performance of the Windows desktop and
> Windows CE versions of libusbx compared to Linux on the same hardware.
> The event handling in Windows and Windows CE appears to take
> considerably longer than for Linux.
>
> This is understandable given the
11 matches
Mail list logo
