Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:14:42 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH v6 03/12] media: Entities, pads and links |
| |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 25 November 2010 16:49:52 Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > It's supposed to reflect whether the link can carry data. Think of the > > > active flag as a valve on a pipe. If the valve is open, the link is > > > active. If the valve is closed, the link is inactive. This is unrelated > > > to whether water actually flows through the pipe.
> > This seems a confusing name, then - I'd expect an active link to be one > > which is actually carrying data rather than one which is available to > > carry data. How a more neutrally worded name such as "connected" (which > > is what ASoC uses currently)?
> In our current vocabulary "connected" refers to entities between which a link > exist, regardless of the link state ("valve opened" or "valve closed"). I'm > not totally happy with "active" either, but if we replace it with "connected" > we need another word to replace current uses of "connected".
Linked?
| |