[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1457613583.2411.11.camel@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:39:43 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role
port mux
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 15:53 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> index 5172a61..a2261cb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform
> @@ -18,3 +18,18 @@ Description:
> devices to opt-out of driver binding using a driver_override
> name such as "none". Only a single driver may be specified in
> the override, there is no support for parsing delimiters.
> +
> +What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../intel_mux
Hi,
is there any reason to call this "intel_mux"? We want a common interface
for such things. So how about "role_mux" or "master_slave_mux"?
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists