I'm trying to run the new example you just added, SPItoFTDI. I bought the FTDI board and wired it up, and am in the process of trying to get the FTDI C++ example, spi_slave_test_slave_side.cpp, to compile/run on the Windows side of things. I noticed in that example that you set the ADuCM350 be the SPI master in SPItoFTDI.c, and the FTDI board to be the SPI slave in spi_slave_test_slave_side.cpp. Can you comment on the advantages/disadvantages as far as setting up the SPI master and SPI slave in this way (as opposed to making the ADuCM350 be the SPI slave and the FTDI be the SPI master)?
I'd like to extend your SPItoFTDI example so that I can continuously stream 8 kbyte chunks of data from the ADuCM350 (in a double-buffering scheme) up to Windows in order to log the data to a file. Do you think extending SPItoFTDI is a good approach (i.e. do you think keeping the ADuCM350 as the SPI master and the FTDI board as the SPI slave) is a good approach for what I want to achieve?