[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161028170302.au73yu2fplfig36a@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:03:02 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
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>,
grygorii.strashko@...com,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.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 v18 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the
usb gadget power negotation
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:51:41PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On 28 October 2016 at 06:00, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> wrote:
> > 1/ I think we agreed that it doesn't make sense for there to be
> > two chargers registered in a system.
> Yes, until now...
> > However usb_charger_register() still allows that, and assigns
> > and arbitrary name to each based on discovery order.
> > This *cannot* make sense.
> Fine, I can change that to allow only one charger to register.
Yeah, it's a reasonable change. I'm not sure the prior discussion was
100% conclusive on the issue (I remember there being some debate about
leaving things there to avoid any need for future refactoring to touch
the interface).
> > 2/ Why do you have usb_charger_set_current()??
> > No code ever calls it.
> > This updates the min and max current which are defined in a
> > standard. It never makes sense to change the min and max
> > for a particular cable type.
> Mark, do we have some scenarios which want to change the current
> limitation? If not, okay, I agree with you to remove this function.
I'm not aware of any, we can always add it back if the need arises.
> > Related: I don't like charger_type_show(). I don't think
> > the usb-charger should export that information to user-space because
> > extcon already does that, and duplication is confusing and pointless.
> I think we should combine all charger related information into one
> place for user. Moreover if we don't get charger type from extcon, we
> should also need one place to export the charger type.
I had also thought there was some software negotation as well as the
physical charger in cases where the device is plugged into an active
host? I could be wrong.
> > 5/ There is no convincing example usage of this framework.
> > wm8931x_power.c just scratches the surface.
> > If it is so good, it should be easy to convert a lot of other
> > drivers over to it. If you did that it would be much easier
> > to see how it works and what the strengths/weaknesses were.
> Jun have send out one patchset[1] based on my patchset, and he tested
> mypatchset. Thanks for your comments.
> [1]http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg139809.html
I think it's a good idea to pick up Jun's patches into your patch set,
that way Jun doesn't need to rebase and it might help with review of
your patches too.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists