Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:33:19 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PATCH: typo bits |
| |
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:29:47 +0200 Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |