[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/5] ALSA: usb-audio: unify UAC macros and struct names
tiwai at suse.de
Wed Jun 16 22:21:17 CEST 2010
At Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:40:44 +0200,
Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 07:34:49PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:57:28 +0200,
> > Daniel Mack wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/usb/audio.h b/include/linux/usb/audio.h
> > > index c51200c..a54b825 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/usb/audio.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/usb/audio.h
> > > @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@
> > > #define UAC_MIXER_UNIT 0x04
> > > #define UAC_SELECTOR_UNIT 0x05
> > > #define UAC_FEATURE_UNIT 0x06
> > > -#define UAC_PROCESSING_UNIT_V1 0x07
> > > -#define UAC_EXTENSION_UNIT_V1 0x08
> > > +#define UAC1_PROCESSING_UNIT 0x07
> > > +#define UAC1_EXTENSION_UNIT 0x08
> > So now we have mixed prefix here, UAC_ and UAC1_.
> > Isn't it a bit confusing, too?
> > Honestly, I have no much preference about this name-ruling.
> > But it's of course better if it's stabilized :)
> Well yeah, I hate that too, especially as it is a matter of taste
Indeed, it's just a matter of taste.
> However, the idea is: things that are common for both UAC1
> and UAC2 are prefixed with UAC_, and only those things that are special
> get a number suffix. Which is the case in the block you quoted above.
Yeah, that I understood. It's just that I feel something not clear
around this... It might be simply because of the salad I ate today,
though. But I'd like to hear opinions of others before merging.
If nothing comes up, I'm willing to apply as is.
> (This perticular detail is really the greatest unnecessary confusion in
> the UAC2 spec, btw. They just drop one enumeration value and shuffled
> two others around for no obvious reason. Now we have to live with that.)
There are always enough examples how to behave rude :)
More information about the Alsa-devel