Hi, On 6/25/2019 6:51 AM, Sean Young wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 03:54:21AM -0400, A Sun wrote: >> >> - dev_err(ir->dev, "Error: request urb status = %d (TX HALT)", >> + dev_err(ir->dev, "Error: tx urb status = %d (TX HALT)", > > I am not sure this makes things clearer. Some of the code still refers > to request, e.g. mce_request_packet. > > Since this is an IR device, there is IR TX and RX; however this unrelated > to that. > > There is one urb/endpoint on which commands are sent; on the other, we > receiver responses and IR data. Calling those TX and RX is not a good > idea I think. The tx urb described is also for IR data TX. IR TX is one primary function/purpose of the device. It happens that the urb/endpoint for IR TX is the same urb/endpoint for mceusb device commands. The same is found for IR data RX. The urb/endpoint for IR RX is the same urb/endpoint for mceusb device responses (to commands). > > The existing code refers to request and response, and also TX and RX in > places. The microsoft documentation refers to "command and response" which > would be consistent with the #define's we have (MCE_CMD_* and MCE_RSP_*). > My intent is to try and better word several of the USB layer messages, and avoid confusing Microsoft MCE terms in those messages. The original "(request) urb" phrases expand to "request USB Request Block" and "<blank> USB Request Block" which are particularly confusing, and non-specific, respectively. Thanks, ..A Sun
