[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/5] ALSA: usb-audio: unify UAC macros and struct names

[Takashi Iwai]

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
> eventually.

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 :)


thanks,

Takashi