[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       libftdi
Subject:    Re: Should ftdi_read_data_submit_to() be a new call?
From:       Uwe Bonnes <bon () elektron ! ikp ! physik ! tu-darmstadt ! de>
Date:       2011-04-27 9:11:35
Message-ID: 19895.56775.246257.404400 () elektron ! ikp ! physik ! tu-darmstadt ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Jarosch <thomas.jarosch@intra2net.com> writes:

    Thomas> On Wednesday, 13. April 2011 14:06:33 Michael Plante wrote:
    >> Thomas Jarosch wrote: >> On Wednesday, 13. April 2011 04:40:33
    >> Michael Plante wrote: >> > Dunno what to say about libftdi-1.0, but
    >> my concern was with >> > libftdi-0.1/git, which still doesn't seem to
    >> have 3b92d47 reverted.
    >> >> 
    >> >> As far as I can see from the archive, the discussion was still
    >> going >> on?
    >> 
    >> I thought Uwe had agreed, but we can wait and see what advice he has.

    Thomas> Uwe, any comment on this one?

Yes, in my mail 
Subject: RE: libftdi: Make ftdi_read_data() honor usb_read_timeout
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:02:44 +0200

I already said:
> But thinking and discussing longer, you are right, let's keep the old
> behaviour.

But I also asked for:
> Is it worth introducing to 0.18 something like ftdi_read_sized_data() that
> reties for some time? Timeout should not be ftdi_read_timeout, as it is 
> used in another context. Otherwise user function expecting a known number 
> of bytes must implement their own timeout handling...
-- 
Uwe Bonnes                bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@developer.intra2net.com   

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]