Hi Peter, Mark Thank you for your feedback > I understand is that naming is difficult, but a rich-graph-card sounds a > bit awkward? > Will we see a wealthy-graph-card if the rich is not resourceful enough? ;) > > The current generation of graph based generic audio card is > audio-graph-card > > This is going to be an (incompatible) evolution, the Next/New > Generation. Would it sound better if it is named > audio-graph-card-ng / ng-audio-graph-card > > The 'rich' sound really out of place (if not rich then poor?). > > Next Generation, New Generation, Extended, etc > or just drop the graph and > generic-audio-card To be honest, I don't think this version will be final version of Generic audio card driver. We will want to have more advanced generic audio card if framework was updated, and/or new feature was added, and/or want to use more complex connection, etc, etc, etc... In such case, because of Device-Tree, it is very difficult to update driver with keeping compatibility. This means, we need to keep old version generic audio card as-is, and add new generic audio card, like this version. New / Next / Extended / Rich are not best naming IMO. For example, we will confuse if we add new generic audio card at 10 years later (It should be more new/next/extended/rich than this version). And yes, people should not feel bad from driver naming. Thus, my honest opinion is that using v2, v3, ... is easy to understand, especially for audio-graph-card. (audio-graph-card2, audio-graph-card3, ...) But, any naming is very welcome for me if Mark and/or all people are accepted. Thank you for your help !! Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto
