Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs v2

On 2012.09.07 11:03, Hans de Goede wrote: > Looks good, as for the anonymous union versus not, given that you > clearly dislike it and I can understand why (its ugly), lets just > go with the rename. OK. If we think this needs to be discussed further, I don't have a problem pushing the MaxPower -

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs v2

Hi, Looks good, as for the anonymous union versus not, given that you clearly dislike it and I can understand why (its ugly), lets just go with the rename. We must however then document this in NEWS, including documenting the necessary #ifdef for code using it to be able to compile with both older

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs v2

v2. To keep it short, besides a link to libusbx.org, I very much want to have a 2012 year mentioned in there, to show that we're actively updating the library. That's why I tried to combine the whole thing in the copyright line. So, from now on, you're gonna have my name there. Regards, /Pete

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On 2012.09.06 19:51, Orin Eman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Hans de Goede > A preferable (to me) alternative would be an anonymous union, but > I was unsure that all compilers would accept it. > > > An anonymous union would work for me That's ugly and IMO that's pretty m

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > I don't think you should break existing code until libusbx 2.0. > I think you should add: > > > > #define MaxPower bMaxPower > > > > > > That was my initial thought to, but MaxPower is too generic of a > na

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 08:20 PM, Orin Eman wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Hans de Goede > wrote: > > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > p...@akeo.ie>> wrote: >> >> This is #26: >> https://github.com/libusbx/__**libusbx/issues/26

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On 06/09/12 11:07, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > > wrote: >> >> This is #26: https://github.com/libusbx/__libusbx/issues/26 >> , but do

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 09:16 AM, Ludovic Rousseau wrote: > 2012/9/6 Pete Batard : >> I also took the opportunity to update the copyright in our most public >> header, as we might as well promote libusbx there. > > The goal of a copyright is not to promote something but to assign the > copyright to a le

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

Hi, On 09/06/2012 04:35 AM, Orin Eman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard > wrote: > > This is #26: https://github.com/libusbx/__libusbx/issues/26 > , but doesn't include BOS/EP > Companion. > > Note tha

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

2012/9/6 Pete Batard : > I also took the opportunity to update the copyright in our most public > header, as we might as well promote libusbx there. The goal of a copyright is not to promote something but to assign the copyright to a legal entity. libusbx.org has no legal existence and can not be

Re: [Libusbx-devel] [PATCH] Update libusb.h header in accordance with USB 3.0 specs

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Pete Batard wrote: > This is #26: > https://github.com/libusbx/**libusbx/issues/26, > but doesn't include BOS/EP Companion. > > Note that the proposed patch fixes libusb_config_descriptor to use > bMaxPower, as it is l