Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:48:21 -0800 |
| |
On 11/14/2017 05:17 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:29:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>> Other major thing is the typec code that moved out of staging and into >>> the "real" part of the drivers/usb/ tree, which was nice to see happen. >> >> Hmm. So now it asks me about Type-C Port Controller Manager. Fair >> enough. I say "N", because I have none. But then it still asks me >> about that TI TPS6598x driver... >> >> So I do see the _technical_ logic in there - the "TYPEC" config option >> is a hidden internal option, and it's selected by the things that need >> it. >> >> But from a user perspective, this configuration model is really strange. >> >> Why is TYPEC_TCPM something you ask the user, but not "do you want >> Type-C support"? And if you single out the PCM side to ask about, why >> don't you single out the power delivery side? >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to at least ask whether I want Type-C >> power delivery chips before it then starts asking about individual PD >> drivers, the same way you asked about the port controller before you >> started asking ab out individual port controller drivers? >> >> Or is it just me who finds this a bit odd? > > Yes, it is odd, but then again, so is typec :( > > I think this is an artifact of the code living in two different > directories for a while (drivers/staging/ and drivers/usb) and now > coming together. > > Guenter, can you make up a patch to fix up the Kconfig entries in > drivers/usb/typec/Kconfig to make a bit more sense now that things are > all living in the same place in the tree? >
I'll give it a try. Wonder if we should make TYPEC_TCPM implicit (selected) instead of having a dependency on it. After all, its use depends on the selected chip. Any thoughts ?
Guenter
| |