Dominic a écrit :
> > load_image /home/vmaster/test.img 0x2000 bin
> 1048576 byte written at address 0x2000
> downloaded 1048576 byte in 4.363197s (204.322 KB/s)
>
>
>
That was the problem I had, I will give another try. With results like
this I would say that I have no more objection.
Fla
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Dominic wrote:
> These tests show libftdi ahead of ftd2xx or only very slightly behind. This
> is by no means a complete performance evaluation and the devil might be in
> the details, but I think it shows that these days libftdi is on par with
> ftd2xx, at least o
On Saturday 27 June 2009 11:30:07 David Brownell wrote:
> > Pavel's explanation matches with what I remember about this issue. I'm
> > preparing a test setup to verify the numbers just now.
>
> ISTR Nicolas Pitre reported almost-the-same-speed too.
>
> At least, on Linux. I believe MS-Windows does
On Saturday 27 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> How about here:
>
> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008193.html
That's Windows though -- different question.
> Libraries achieve same speed when uploading to RAM, but it seems that
> ROM speeds are different...
Dominic pisze:
> On Saturday 27 June 2009 08:58:00 Freddie Chopin wrote:
> > David Brownell pisze:
> > >> There may be people who run Linux and Mac OS X and want
> > >> to use the FTDI D2XX library due to the perceived performance
> > >> reasons.
> > >
> > > Which, by latest reports, are at b
On Saturday 27 June 2009, Dominic wrote:
> On Saturday 27 June 2009 08:58:00 Freddie Chopin wrote:
> > David Brownell pisze:
> > >> There may be people who run Linux and Mac OS X and want
> > >> to use the FTDI D2XX library due to the perceived performance
> > >> reasons.
> > >
> > > Which, by late
On Saturday 27 June 2009 08:58:00 Freddie Chopin wrote:
> David Brownell pisze:
> >> There may be people who run Linux and Mac OS X and want
> >> to use the FTDI D2XX library due to the perceived performance
> >> reasons.
> >
> > Which, by latest reports, are at best marginal.
>
> Where are those r
David Brownell pisze:
>> There may be people who run Linux and Mac OS X and want
>> to use the FTDI D2XX library due to the perceived performance
>> reasons.
>
> Which, by latest reports, are at best marginal.
Where are those reports? It seems that I have missed another thing here...
4\/3!!
On Friday 26 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here: currently, the *ENTIRE* reason
> > to care about the D2XX library is to get simpler Windows support.
>
> Not so sure about the word "ENTIRE". I think it certainly is the
> main reason.
>
> There may be people who run L
On Friday 26 June 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here: currently, the *ENTIRE* reason
> > to care about the D2XX library is to get simpler Windows support.
>
> Windows is not the only platform so you can't just rip that stuff off
Why not? It's the only platform OpenOCD
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 26 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> On the other hand, it may be easier to create a WinUSB backend for
>> OpenOCD which covers the needs for OpenOCD (or libftdi) and
>> OpenOCD (or libftdi) only. You may not need to be a Windows d
David Brownell a écrit :
> On Friday 26 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, it may be easier to create a WinUSB backend for
>> OpenOCD which covers the needs for OpenOCD (or libftdi) and
>> OpenOCD (or libftdi) only. You may not need to be a Windows driver
>> developer to do t
On Friday 26 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On the other hand, it may be easier to create a WinUSB backend for
> OpenOCD which covers the needs for OpenOCD (or libftdi) and
> OpenOCD (or libftdi) only. You may not need to be a Windows driver
> developer to do this.
Correct me if I'm wrong here:
On Friday 26 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:
> I believe the "WinUSB" solution is a solution, that for some reason
> keeps being left off your list.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa476426.aspx
Technically, I'm beginning to think that's correct. Just
write directly to WinUSB instead
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:15 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
>> Zach Welch wrote:
>> > Only libusb+libftdi serves our long-term interests.
>> >
>> Wrong.
>>
>> "libusb" is a *blocking* issue that we cannot control, fix, nor
>> whatever. LIBUSB is not su
2009/6/27 Michel Catudal :
> I don't think that they want us to move to vista 64 bit as most of the
> drivers for our hardware would not work but there is a point
> where we may be forced to move to vista or windows 7 and
> isn't windows 7 only 64 bits.
No. Windows 7 has 32bit version as well.
ht
Xiaofan Chen a écrit :
> 2009/6/27 Michel Catudal :
>
>> Out of curiosity, do you mean to say that the driver will not load at
>> all if not signed under vista 64 and Win 7?
>> This would be a serious reason for me not to let IS change my system
>> from XP.
>>
>> I have several very expensive pi
2009/6/27 Michel Catudal :
> Out of curiosity, do you mean to say that the driver will not load at
> all if not signed under vista 64 and Win 7?
> This would be a serious reason for me not to let IS change my system
> from XP.
>
> I have several very expensive pieces of software at work that are no
Dominic a écrit :
> o the WinUSB backend brings a WHQL signed driver, which is good,
> because it
> runs on all windows versions that required signed drivers (Vista 64-bit,
> Windows 7)
>
>
Out of curiosity, do you mean to say that the driver will not load at
all if not signed under vista 64 and
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:15 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> Zach Welch wrote:
> > Only libusb+libftdi serves our long-term interests.
> >
> Wrong.
>
> "libusb" is a *blocking* issue that we cannot control, fix, nor
> whatever. LIBUSB is not supported by *newer* windows platforms. Unless
> and unt
> Just one more clarification. libusb-win32 can be made to support Vista
> 64bit and Windows 7 as well with a digital signature. It already works
> under XP 64bit.
>
> Vendors can also use libusb-win32 as their default device and get
> it WHQLed with their particular VID/PID if they want to do t
June, 2009 17:35:41
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] ftd2xx -> libftdi
On Friday 26 June 2009 18:10:56 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > o libftdi apparently works with libusb-win32's API (see for example
> > Freddie's post)
>
> Yes.
>
> > o libusb-win32 comes wit
On Friday 26 June 2009 19:26:38 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Hope this helps.
It does. Thanks a lot for your patience and your valuable information.
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Dominic wrote:
Firstly I am not a Windows driver expert and I do not and can not
code for live. But I know quite a bit of USB under Linux/Windows,
especially libusb and libusb-win32.
> Is the libusb-win32 1.0 branch compatible with libftdi (i.e. is it
> compatibl
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] ftd2xx -> libftdi
From: Xiaofan Chen
To: Ronald Vanschoren
Cc: openocd-development
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 18:30:22 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time)
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Ronald
Vanschoren wrote:
I
On Friday 26 June 2009 18:10:56 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > o libftdi apparently works with libusb-win32's API (see for example
> > Freddie's post)
>
> Yes.
>
> > o libusb-win32 comes with 3 (maybe 4) backends
> > - a libusb driver and a libusb filter driver (not sure if this
> > differenciation is sti
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Dominic wrote:
>
>> I've been investigating the Windows USB mess a little yesterday. Maybe
>> someone can help fill in the uncertainties, here's what I have collected so
>> far.
>>
>> o libusb-win32 is API com
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Ronald
Vanschoren wrote:
> IMHO, this makes any solution NOT based on FTD2xx unacceptable. People
> will not be willing to give up all their other tooling to run OpenOCD,
> instead they might find other solutions and stop using OpenOCD. I
> haven't read all the ma
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] ftd2xx -> libftdi
From: Xiaofan Chen
To: Freddie Chopin
Cc: openocd-development
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 17:54:25 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time)
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>
>> Ro
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Dominic wrote:
> I've been investigating the Windows USB mess a little yesterday. Maybe
> someone can help fill in the uncertainties, here's what I have collected so
> far.
>
> o libusb-win32 is API compatible with libusb 0.1, but is capable of
> somethings that l
On Friday 26 June 2009 17:15:12 Duane Ellis wrote:
> Zach Welch wrote:
> > Only libusb+libftdi serves our long-term interests.
>
> Wrong.
>
> "libusb" is a *blocking* issue that we cannot control, fix, nor
> whatever. LIBUSB is not supported by *newer* windows platforms. Unless
> and until it is su
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Ronald Vanschoren pisze:
>> I have only taken a quick look at WinUSB, but if I understand the
>> concept correctly there might be an issue. I'm not sure of what I'm
>> saying here so shout if it's complete nonsense. To work with WinUSB,
>> y
Ronald Vanschoren pisze:
> I have only taken a quick look at WinUSB, but if I understand the
> concept correctly there might be an issue. I'm not sure of what I'm
> saying here so shout if it's complete nonsense. To work with WinUSB,
> your USB device has to indicate that WinUsb.sys is its drive
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] ftd2xx -> libftdi
From: Xiaofan Chen
To: open...@duaneellis.com
Cc: openocd-development
Date: Fri Jun 26 2009 17:27:36 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
Z
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
> Zach Welch wrote:
>> Only libusb+libftdi serves our long-term interests.
>>
> Wrong.
>
> "libusb" is a *blocking* issue that we cannot control, fix, nor
> whatever. LIBUSB is not supported by *newer* windows platforms. Unless
> and until it is
Zach Welch wrote:
> Only libusb+libftdi serves our long-term interests.
>
Wrong.
"libusb" is a *blocking* issue that we cannot control, fix, nor
whatever. LIBUSB is not supported by *newer* windows platforms. Unless
and until it is supported it becomes a dead end solution, period, end of
sto
Hello Zach and the list,
Zach Welch napsal(a):
> If we are pursuing all of these at one time, our collective resources
> are not being used efficiently. It's nice to see all the activity, but
> I think we could make more productive use of our collective time. Now,
> I am *not* asking anyone to c
Hi all,
Having had time to reflect quietly about the FTD2XX situation, I have
started to grow concerned about the numerous options that have been
proposed to address the FTD2XX distribution issue.
All these efforts -- in N directions at once -- most trying to solve one
single problem, and this is
38 matches
Mail list logo
