Hi Dinh, > >Somehow I assumed that was fixed by the hardware, but I see now that you > >are right. Yes, making the definition larger is better than moving the > >+ 1. > This was my original fix to the problem, but I thought that it would > be confusing when reading the code. I also thought about the "+1" > for host_channels was strange too. For debug outputs, it would be > more accurate to display 16 channels, in code-wise, I see that > host_channels is used in 2 for loops. Does it make sense to just fix > the for loops to include channels 0-15? I think that fixing this in the places where the value is used is moving the complexity the wrong way. Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, thoguh. > >Dinh, do you want to do that? The other option is that Matthijs could > >fix it and give you the Reported-by credit. > I'm fine with that, if Matthijs wants to submit the fix. I can test > it on my hardware too. I'll prepare a patch in a few hours. Would be great if you could test, since my hardware only has a meagre 4 host channels ;-) Gr. Matthijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
