lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1
Hi Guenter,

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:48:21AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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 ?

Sorry, I had not noticed Greg's answer.

My proposal was kinda the opposite. To make the TYPEC user selectable:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/14/281

But making TYPEC_TCPM implicit works for me too. It just means the
user is asked about every Type-C and Power Delivery driver always.


Thanks,

--
heikki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-14 16:08    [W:0.054 / U:4.048 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site