linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHv2] usb: USB Type-C Connector Class

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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