Re: [avrdude-dev] [patch #8967] Change ft2xx library to ftdi_syncbb instead of libusb

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> libusb-win32 and libusb-1.0 for Windows are both quite stable now
> and have been used by many project. Maybe you are still based
> your opinion on the old version of libusb-win32 (0.1.x version) which
> was unstable under Windows Vista/7/etc.

Алексей, any opinion on that?

> OpenOCD project has re-written the ftd2xx/libftdi based backend
> for FTDI based JTAG debuggers to libusb-1.0 based mpsse and the
> speed increased by quite a bit (using asynchronous API).

AVRDUDE uses libusb-1.0 when it is avaiable.  It's probably not
present in my MinGW32 w32 cross-compilation builds though.

> Just FYI, ftd2xx under Linux is based on libusb-1.0.

:)

I wonder why they don't make it opensource then.


As address@hidden wrote:

> This library installs in Windows 8, 8.1 and 10 (maybe 7 too) with standard
> drivers when I plug ft232rl device. I think for this reason is can be 
> qualified
> as a "system library".

For Windows, perhaps.  I wouldn't want to put too much effort into a
legal debate.  From a GPL point of view, linking against a
closed-source library is a bit of a "borderline" thing.

> For now patch replaces existing ft245r.c but if this idea can be live,
> it can be realized as option and use ftd2xx instead of libusb only when
> it is needed. Like compiling with different versions of libusb and libftdi.

I am not completely opposed to it, as long as it remains optional.
Preferrably, not even autodetected but with an --with-ft2xx configure
option, so even people who have installed FT2XX can voluntarily decide
whether they'd like to have their AVRDUDE build linked against it or
not.

> > * If you wrote the file, please add your name in the copyright
> > header.
> 
> It is not whole mine code. It is compilation of current ft245r.c and
> first version of ft245r.c from Avrdude 5.10. Comments in this files stay
> without changes.

OK, then, at least, add your name, as well as an updated year.

Depending on how many things you've changed, you might also think about
#ifdef'ing it inside the existing implementation.
-- 
cheers, Joerg               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)