usb device class #41
-
I am trying to understand, why there are device/class and device_next/class paths with almost same code? In my understanding copy-pasting the code inceases testing effort exponentially. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment
-
As mentioned in https://github.com/CANnectivity/cannectivity/blob/main/README.md, CANnectivity supports both the classic and the experimental USB
If you had taken a look in e.g. https://github.com/CANnectivity/cannectivity/tree/main/tests/subsys/usb/gs_usb/host, you would have seen that the testing efforts are not duplicated between the two class implementations. The only difference in the test code relates to the initialisation of the USB stack. Both stacks can be tested on the same hardware, both for test cases and firmware application. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
As mentioned in https://github.com/CANnectivity/cannectivity/blob/main/README.md, CANnectivity supports both the classic and the experimental USB
device_next
stacks provided by Zephyr. While the files may seem very similar on quick glance, the similarities end when it comes to the USB device APIs, they need to implement.If you had taken a look in e.g. https://github.com/CANnectivity/cannectivity/tree/main/tests/subsys/usb/gs_usb/host, you would have seen that the testing efforts are not duplicated bet…