At Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:40:44 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 07:34:49PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:57:28 +0200, > > Daniel Mack wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/usb/audio.h b/include/linux/usb/audio.h > > > index c51200c..a54b825 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/usb/audio.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/usb/audio.h > > > @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ > > > #define UAC_MIXER_UNIT 0x04 > > > #define UAC_SELECTOR_UNIT 0x05 > > > #define UAC_FEATURE_UNIT 0x06 > > > -#define UAC_PROCESSING_UNIT_V1 0x07 > > > -#define UAC_EXTENSION_UNIT_V1 0x08 > > > +#define UAC1_PROCESSING_UNIT 0x07 > > > +#define UAC1_EXTENSION_UNIT 0x08 > > > > So now we have mixed prefix here, UAC_ and UAC1_. > > Isn't it a bit confusing, too? > > > > Honestly, I have no much preference about this name-ruling. > > But it's of course better if it's stabilized :) > > Well yeah, I hate that too, especially as it is a matter of taste > eventually. Indeed, it's just a matter of taste. > However, the idea is: things that are common for both UAC1 > and UAC2 are prefixed with UAC_, and only those things that are special > get a number suffix. Which is the case in the block you quoted above. Yeah, that I understood. It's just that I feel something not clear around this... It might be simply because of the salad I ate today, though. But I'd like to hear opinions of others before merging. If nothing comes up, I'm willing to apply as is. > (This perticular detail is really the greatest unnecessary confusion in > the UAC2 spec, btw. They just drop one enumeration value and shuffled > two others around for no obvious reason. Now we have to live with that.) There are always enough examples how to behave rude :) thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
