[Libdlo] Synchronous vs. asynchronous USB

[Greg KH]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:42:15AM +0100, JKing wrote:
> >>/ Does anyone have datapoints on how universally libusb 1.0 is getting
> />>/ distributed now? In particular, in terms of older Linux distros and
> />>/ non-Linux OSes -- it'd be great to know where support stops.
> />
> >It's in all new Linux OS releases that are released from about a few
> >months ago on.
> 
> recent PCLinuxOS 2009.1 iso and repositary I believe is libusb 0.14
> 
> what about things like old eeePC's and older distrib's that do not
> auto/easily update ? 

They would not be using this code anyway :)

> >>/ My suspicion, given what I see in the docs right now, is we would
> />/> limit the portability of libdlo a little too much to take that
> />/> dependency right now.  But would be great to hear other thoughts.
> />
> >I doubt it would matter that much in the end :)
> 
> 
> If not tooo painful support for both would be good, i.e. detect
> version and have a safe fallback ?

That's very difficult to do here, they are two totally separate apis
being used.  You don't want to have two different code paths in the same
driver doing the same thing, testing is a nightmare.

Worse case, just bundle libusb1 with the library, that is what libdlo
used to do before I ripped it out :)

thanks,

greg k-h