On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> ChangeSet 1.1003.1.91, 2003/07/17 14:20:22-03:00, [email protected]
>
> [PATCH] PATCH: typo bits
>
>
>
> # This patch includes the following deltas:
> # ChangeSet 1.1003.1.90 -> 1.1003.1.91
> # drivers/usb/host/sl811.c 1.2 -> 1.3
> # drivers/usb/host/Config.in 1.6 -> 1.7
> #
>
> Config.in | 2 +-
> sl811.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/host/Config.in b/drivers/usb/host/Config.in
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/Config.in Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/Config.in Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@
> fi
> dep_tristate ' OHCI (Compaq, iMacs, OPTi, SiS, ALi, ...) support' CONFIG_USB_OHCI $CONFIG_USB
> if [ "$CONFIG_ARM" = "y" ]; then
> - dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isochornous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> + dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isosynchronous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> fi
> diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> * Adam Richter, Gregory P. Smith;
> 2.Original SL811 driver (hc_sl811.o) by Pei Liu <[email protected]>
> *
> - * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> + * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
> > - dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isochornous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> > + dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isosynchronous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> > fi
> > diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c
> > --- a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> > * Adam Richter, Gregory P. Smith;
> > 2.Original SL811 driver (hc_sl811.o) by Pei Liu <[email protected]>
> > *
> > - * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> > + * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
>
> I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
Perhaps someone can clarify - however isochornus is definitely wrong either way
On 18 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > - dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isochornous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> > > + dep_tristate ' SL811HS Alternate (support isosynchronous mode)' CONFIG_USB_SL811HS_ALT $CONFIG_USB
> > > fi
> > > diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/sl811.c Thu Jul 17 11:07:46 2003
> > > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> > > * Adam Richter, Gregory P. Smith;
> > > 2.Original SL811 driver (hc_sl811.o) by Pei Liu <[email protected]>
> > > *
> > > - * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> > > + * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> >
> > I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
>
> Perhaps someone can clarify - however isochornus is definitely wrong either way
Yes, isochornus is wrong.
Just try dict:
- No definitions found for "isosynchronous"
- 2 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Isochronous \I*soch"ro*nous\, a. [Gr. ?; ? equal + ? time.]
Same as {Isochronal}.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
isochronous
<communications> /i:-sok'rn-*s/ A form of data transmission
that guarantees to provide a certain minimum {data rate}, as
required for time-dependent data such as {video} or {audio}.
Isochronous transmission transmits asynchronous data over a
synchronous data link so that individual characters are only
separated by a whole number of bit-length intervals. This is
in contrast to {asynchronous} transmission, in which the
characters may be separated by arbitrary intervals, and with
{synchronous} transmission [which does what?].
{Asynchronous Transfer Mode} and {High Performance Serial Bus}
can provide isochronous service.
Compare: {plesiochronous}.
[ANIXTER, LAN Magazine 7.93]
[Better explanation?]
(1999-03-12)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Alan Cox wrote:
>>>- * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
>>>+ * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
>>
>>I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
>
> Perhaps someone can clarify - however isochornus is definitely wrong either way
"Isochronous" is correct; it is a synonym for "isochronal", which means
"uniform in time; of equal duration". That is, I believe, apropos to the
intended meaning of the comment above.
"Isosynchronous" does not appear in any of my dictionaries.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:36:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > - * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> > > + * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
> >
> > I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
>
> Perhaps someone can clarify - however isochornus is definitely wrong either way
You are the native English speaker here. Isosynchronous is (was?) not an
English word.
Oh, but we aren't speaking English - this is about USB devices.
Read the USB standard and see that it has an isosynchronous mode.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:29:47 +0200 Andries Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:36:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
|
| > > > - * It's now support isochronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
| > > > + * It's now support isosynchronous mode and more effective than hc_sl811.o
| > >
| > > I thought the correct term was `isochronous'...
| >
| > Perhaps someone can clarify - however isochornus is definitely wrong either way
|
| You are the native English speaker here. Isosynchronous is (was?) not an
| English word.
|
| Oh, but we aren't speaking English - this is about USB devices.
| Read the USB standard and see that it has an isosynchronous mode.
It does? I can't find it in the main USB 2.0 spec.
It discusses isochronous, which is what I would prefer to see,
regardless of the USB spec.
--
~Randy
On Gwe, 2003-07-18 at 16:04, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> Ah, yes, you are right. I did a grep on the USB docs directory
> and it is full of isosynchronous, but those are all fragments
> from the net. The actual standards correctly use isochronous
Cool.. I just wanted the typo fixed 8)
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:33:19AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | Isosynchronous is (was?) not an English word.
> |
> | Oh, but we aren't speaking English - this is about USB devices.
> | Read the USB standard and see that it has an isosynchronous mode.
>
> It does? I can't find it in the main USB 2.0 spec.
> It discusses isochronous, which is what I would prefer to see,
> regardless of the USB spec.
Ah, yes, you are right. I did a grep on the USB docs directory
and it is full of isosynchronous, but those are all fragments
from the net. The actual standards correctly use isochronous.
Sorry.
Andries