[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1464186056.2132.12.camel@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:20:56 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Rajaram R <rajaram.officemail@...il.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2] usb: USB Type-C Connector Class
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 17:04 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> I'm not against leaving the responsibility of registering the alternate
> modes to the drivers. I'm a little bit worried about relying then on
> the drivers to also handle the unregistering accordingly, but I can
> live with that. But we just shouldn't share the responsibility of
> un/registering them between the class and the drivers, so the driver
> should then handle the registration always.
>
> Oliver, what do you think?
Either will do for me. Registration by the drivers is a bit better.
But it has to be the one or the other. Mixing is indeed bad.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists