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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:34 EST