lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] usb: type-c: USB Type-C Connector System Software Interface
Date

Hi,

Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com> writes:
>> > What exactly are you sure about about?
>>
>> heh, missed a NOT there :-)
>
> I am still confused :-)
> Do you think a sysfs interface is good, bad or good
> but insufficient?

I'm not sure it's the best interface. My fear is that as new
requirements/features come along, the amount of files will continue to
grow.

>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that CC microcontroller might not be
>> the one controlling the multiplexer which switches USB pins to another
>> function. IOW:
>>
>> Change to alternate mode X message
>> CC microcontroller interrupts CPU
>> read status to get X
>> change multiplexer
>>
>
> Yes. But it seems to me that in this case we need a kernel driver
> without an API to user space. There are necessarily internal users

that assumes kernel always knows all possible alternate modes. What do
we about bogus requests (request alternate mode X when X is not
supported) ?

> of the PD controller. There are also external users. So the CC pins
> should be seen as a bus, which in essence they are (it reminds me
> of ancient ethernet actually), and if you really want full user
> space access, you'd need the quivalent of an sg driver.
>
> The issue is orthogonal to the question how we support UCSI, except
> that UCSI is a user of the CC pins and PD and frankly I don't see the
> firmware and a driver access this sanely simultaneously. Therefore
> I'd prefer we make an API here which does not depend on UCSI, but can,
> if necessary, work on top of a driver doing full hardware access.

fair enough.

--
balbi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-18 11:41    [W:0.115 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site