I think that Xiofan suggest the good direction of developement. So I think to proceed in this way:
- Add to the configuration step the possibility to choose which usb library to use. - Create an abstraction layer to the usb library with all the necessary functions for the drivers. - Modify the drivers to use the abstraction layer instead directly the library. Do you think it's reasonable? Mauro Gamba On 20 October 2011 07:02, Xiaofan Chen <xiaof...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Spencer Oliver <s...@spen-soft.co.uk> wrote: >> On 19 October 2011 16:38, Mauro Gamba <maurill...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Sorry for patch errors. >>> I started to patch the jlink driver to use libusb-1 because libusb-0 >>> is not developed further. >>> I haven't done speed tests until now. >>> >> >> http://openocd.zylin.com/33 adds libusb-1.0 support to the jlink. >> >> Just wondering if anyone had any input on this ? >> > > I believe the approach to only uss libusb-1.0 for J-Link is not a good > approach. My idea is to have both options, just like urjtag. When > libusb-1.0 is available and specified by the user, it should use > libusb-1.0, other wise, it will fall back to libusb-0.1. > > Benefits of providing both: > 1) Make the regression testing easier. > 2) Make J-Link to work on platforms where libusb-1.0 is not > available, like Solaris/NetBSD/OpenBSD, and older version > of FreeBSD, and maybe some embedded Linux platform, and > Windows 2000. > 3) Make users who prefer to use libusb-0.1 can use libusb-0.1, > say Windows users who prefer to keep both Segger driver > (to use IAR/Keil/etc) and OpenOCD -- they can use libusb-win32 > filter driver. Take note libusb-1.0 Windows does not support > libusb0.sys backend now and that makes it not working with > the filter driver. > > > -- > Xiaofan > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
