[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMz4kuK30ZGdqgyHNj=xnVLSpceCFD4R8-LvqMS3EOUTUhcHtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:31:12 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, robh@...nel.org,
Jun Li <jun.li@....com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@...il.com>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@...escale.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, r.baldyga@...sung.com,
grygorii.strashko@...com,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
device-mainlining@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/4] gadget: Support for the usb charger framework
Hi Felipe,
On 29 June 2016 at 16:20, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> writes:
>>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> writes:
>>>> For supporting the usb charger, it adds the usb_charger_init() and
>>>> usb_charger_exit() functions for usb charger initialization and exit.
>>>>
>>>> It will report to the usb charger when the gadget state is changed,
>>>> then the usb charger can do the power things.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Li Jun <jun.li@....com>
>>>> Tested-by: Li Jun <jun.li@....com>
>>>
>>> Before anything, I must say that I really liked this patch. It's
>>> minimaly invasive to udc core and does all the necessary changes. If it
>>> wasn't for the extra charger class, this would've been perfect.
>>>
>>> Can't you just tie a charger to a UDC and avoid the charger class
>>> completely?
>>>
>>>> static inline int usb_gadget_vbus_draw(struct usb_gadget *gadget, unsigned mA)
>>>> {
>>>> + if (gadget->charger)
>>>
>>> I guess you could do this check inside
>>> usb_gadget_set_cur_limit_by_type() itself.
>>
>> We will access the 'gadget->charger->type' member when issuing
>> usb_gadget_set_cur_limit_by_type(), so I think I should leave the
>> check here in next new version.
>
> Here's what I mean:
>
> int usb_charger_set_cur_limit(struct usb_gadget *gadget, unsigned int mA)
> {
> struct usb_charger *charger;
> enum usb_charger_type type;
>
> if (!gadget->charger)
> return 0;
>
> charger = gadget->charger;
> type = charger->type;
>
> return __usb_charger_set_cur_limit(charger, type, mA);
> }
But that means we need to export both 'usb_charger_set_cur_limit()'
function and '__usb_charger_set_cur_limit()' function in charger.c
file. Cause some user may want to set the current limitation by one
charger type parameter (may be not from charger->type), like by
issuing '__usb_charger_set_cur_limit(charger, SDP_TYPE, mA)'. How do
you think about this situation? Thanks.
>
> static inline int usb_gadget_vbus_draw(struct usb_gadget *gadget, unsigned mA)
> {
> usb_charger_set_cur_limit(gadget, mA);
>
> if (!gadget->ops->vbus_draw)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> return gadget->ops->vbus_draw(gadget, mA);
> }
>
> --
> balbi
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists