[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57566941.6040109@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:27:13 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jun Li <jun.li@....com>, Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>,
Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@...il.com>
Cc: "felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com" <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/7] usb: mux: add generic code for dual role port mux
Hi Jun,
On 06/07/2016 11:03 AM, Jun Li wrote:
> Hi Roger
>
>>
>> For Mux devices implementing dual-role, the mux device driver _must_ use
>> OTG/dual-role core API so that a common ABI is presented to user space for
>> OTG/dual-role.
> That's the only point we have concern, do dual role switch through
> OTG/dual-role core, not do it by itself.
That really depends on how do you define "dual role". Can you please
provide an unambiguous definition of "dual role" used in OTG/dual-role
framework?
Best regards,
Lu Baolu
>
>> I haven't yet looked at the mux framework but if we take care of the above
>> point then we are not introducing any redundancy.
>>
> Roger, actually this is my worry on OTG core: those dual role switch
> users just tends to do it simply by itself(straightforward and easy),
> not through the OTG core(some complicated in first look),
> this is just an example for us to convince people to select a better
> way:)
>
> Li Jun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists