This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: USB version is 1.10?!
- From: Sergei Organov <osv at javad dot ru>
- To: Jay Foster <jay at systech dot com>
- Cc: "Bart Veer" <bartv at ecoscentric dot com>, ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 27 Nov 2002 20:00:53 +0300
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] USB version is 1.10?!
- References: <80B97DE95AEED311BA580050047FE98455D8D6@mail.systech.com>
Jay Foster <jay@systech.com> writes:
> Looks to me like the definitions are correct. 0x0110 IS version 1.1.
> Version 1.1 and 1.10 are effectively the same.
Really? And if the 1.x specification will ever reach it's 10'th revision
(that is very unlikely), what would be the hex representation for it then?
> 0x0101 would be version 1.01.
Yes. But IMHO 1.01 is much closer to 1.1 than 1.10 to 1.1. I mean that I read
1.1 as "major version 1 minor version 1", 1.01 as "major version 1 minor
version 1", and 1.10 as "major version 1 minor version 10".
I must say that Bart's explanation does make sense to me. Besides, we are in
the M$ world, who cares about specifications there ;-) Anyway, if I were the
person who makes decisions about eCos, I'd put the value that specification
requires no matter what others do as it won't break anything anyway as Bart
has correctly mentioned in his reply.
Sergei.
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss