Dear Colleaques,
I just returned to an old project which I hadn't had time to advance for months. The project involves a FT245R parallel-to-USB converter IC from FTDI. I could not make the WinXP drivers install, however, and finally tried the USBView program which reported the Vendor code 0x067B and product ID 0x2303 suggesting that the chip is actually a Prolific PL2303 !
Now, PL2303 looks pin-compatible enough with FT245R that it could get powered-up in my circuit, and could even respond to a vendor code query over USB. Otherwise it looks more compatible with the FT232R.
A simple explanation would be that I've been swindled and the FT245R is a fake, although the IC case has the FT245R markings on it and it has been bought as a FT245R.
What bothers me is that according to my notebook, months ago I've been able to get FT_ListDevices function of the FTDI driver to actually report the very FT245R. I'm not sure whether I was ever able to actually pass data over the USB link - I seem to recall that I was, but there is no mention of that in my notebook. Now I'd like to figure out whether there is any other explanation to seeing the Prolific vendor ID (besides the counterfeit theory)
- any suggestions?
Originally I thought that the EEPROM containing the Vendor ID has gotten corrupted, but removing the chip from the PCB and soldering a fresh (assumed) FT245R still gave the Prolific ID. I tried running the USBView on three different PC's, with same results. Then I might have mistaken my chip with another USB chip in the system (for instance, the Altera USB-blaster programming cable appears to contain an FTDI chip), but removal of the USB cable leading to my board correctly made the Profilic-ID'd chip disappear from the USBView scan.
Now I'm dumbfounded - if my batch of chips are fakes, where did that earlier FT_ListDevices recognition come from? Besides, what is the use to sell PL2303's as FT245R's, wouldn't it be even more profitable to sell just dead blocks of plastic with FTDI credentials stamped on - the ones I have get caught anyway because the driver won't install? I see a bit more sense in trying to sell PL2303's as FT232R's (I guess they might be more pin compatible) although even then the fakes get caught at the driver installation phase.
Regards, Mikko