linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] 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]

Message-ID: <20160829140739.GA10151@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:07:39 +0300
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@...omium.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class

Hi Guenter,

> > Overall this is quite vague and, especially for chargers, most of the time
> > misses the point.
> > 
> > I would really prefer if we could stay closer to the specification in this
> > case, and not try to merge multiple orthogonal attributes into one.
> 
> OK. So what would you propose?

I'm actually only conserned about the accessory case, as there we are
really not a source/sink/DRP, nor are we DPF/UFP/DRD. Should we use
this attribute to only express if the type of the partner is "normal"
or an accessory?


Thanks,

-- 
heikki