Hi, A friend of mine pointed me to the threads concerning GPL/windows/building/libftdi/libusb/libd2xx. After reading all this an idea came to my head - what if we implement our own GPL/LGPL version of libd2xx.dll ? >From my investigation it seems, that the driver does all the hard work, the DLL itself just calls some ioctls. Also, the driver is the only thing, that needs to be signed if I understand correctly. So we won't touch that. The "open" libd2xx code could be then integrated into libftdi to use the native driver instead of libusb under windows or it could remain a separate library just for the usage of openocd. What do you think about licensing issues with this approach ? Obviously, GPL code can communicate with drivers using system calls so I don't suspect any traps.
Also, Freddie, can I ask for more details about your performance comparisons ? You've said, that libd2xx performs better than libftdi but is this only under windows ? What is the speed difference between libftdi + libusb under linux, libftdi + libusb under windows and libd2xx + native windows driver ? I'm trying to figure out if the windows driver does some magic to speed up the transfers or does libusb suckiness on win32 cause it's inferior performance. Br, Maciej Grela _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
