On Sunday, November 28, 2010 13:34:45 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Friday 26 November 2010 15:14:42 Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 25 November 2010 16:49:52 Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > It's supposed to reflect whether the link can carry data. Think of
> > > > > the active flag as a valve on a pipe. If the valve is open, the link
> > > > > is active. If the valve is closed, the link is inactive. This is
> > > > > unrelated to whether water actually flows through the pipe.
> > > >
> > > > This seems a confusing name, then - I'd expect an active link to be one
> > > > which is actually carrying data rather than one which is available to
> > > > carry data. How a more neutrally worded name such as "connected"
> > > > (which is what ASoC uses currently)?
> > >
> > > In our current vocabulary "connected" refers to entities between which a
> > > link exist, regardless of the link state ("valve opened" or "valve
> > > closed"). I'm not totally happy with "active" either, but if we replace
> > > it with "connected" we need another word to replace current uses of
> > > "connected".
> >
> > Linked?
>
> That's a good option. Hans, do you want to comment on this ?
>
>
Fine by me! It's better than 'active'.
Regards,
Hans
--
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by Cisco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
