On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 10:35 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > That doesn't prevent some people from using foo-$APIVER-$CODEVER if > they really have to, of course -- if they have firmware which can be > conditionally compiled for both old and new APIs, for example. But I > don't think it should be recommended. That doesn't make much sense anyway. If the firmware filename is foo-$APIVER-$CODEVER every code change would need a corresponding driver change. If it is just foo-$APIVER then the $CODEVER can be embedded in the firmware file and printed so you know which code you're using, but if it doesn't influence the API I don't see why it should be part of the filename? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
