On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 02:21:40AM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:46:17PM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 11:39:42PM +0000, Thinh Nguyen wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > > > > + * Intel Merrifield uses these endpoints for tracing and they shouldn't be used > > > > > > + * for normal transfers, we need to skip them. > > > > > > + * • 1 High BW Bulk IN (IN#1) (RTIT) > > > > > > + * • 1 1KB BW Bulk IN (IN#8) + 1 1KB BW Bulk OUT (Run Control) (OUT#8) > > > > > > > > > > Please use regular bullet character and list the endpoint per line. > > > > > > > > Which is...? > > > > > > > > To my curiosity, what's wrong with the above? > > > > > > Please use a character that we can find on the keyboard (- or * for > > > example). > > > > Hmm... We can find all characters on keyboard by using standard approach of > > typing Unicode ones. I'm not sure why this is a problem. Linux kernel is UTF-8 > > ready project (from source tree point of view), at least I haven't found any > > limitations in the documentation. > > > > Note, this is _not_ a kernel-doc style to which you may refer when pointing out > > I'm not requesting this out of any kernel-doc style. It's just a > personal preference and consistency in dwc3. If it's not too difficult, > please use "-". As I said... > But if you must insist, future lists would need to be > consistent to this new unicode style. Then I would need to ask others to > use the new Unicode one. Typically typing * doesn't automatically > convert to • unless you edit using Word, and so I prefer something I and > others can easily find on the keyboard. > > > to the how lists should be represented. > > > > But it's not big deal for me to change the • character. ...not a big deal to me, I will change as requested. > > > And why would you want to list them like this: > > > > > > * Endpoint A > > > * Endpoint B + Endpoint C > > > > Because: > > 1) they are logically connected; > > 2) the above is the exact citation from the specification and I would like to > > keep it that way. > > > > > As oppose to: > > > > > > * Endpoint A > > > * Endpoint B > > > * Endpoint C > > If you prefer to keep the snippet of your vendor specification intact, > we can instead document this fully in the commit message and note the > EBC feature. Remove these comments here. I prefer to have a comment to explain magic numbers. I just want it to be as closer as possible to the specification wording. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
