[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1479289167.2000.8.camel@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:39:27 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATHCv10 1/2] usb: USB Type-C connector class
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 11:30 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:19:10PM -0800, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > Is that too costly to have ?
>
> Greg, could you give your opinion. In this case we do have attribute
> files that the user space can poll. Data role is the USB data role, so
> host or device, and it can change for example if the partner executes
> a swap. The same can happen with the power role.
IMHO the uevent is cheaper. User space cannot just poll without further
infrastructure. A task needs to run to poll. A uevent can be handled
through established infrastructure.
Sure from a kernel level it is the heavier gun, but I think this is
the wrong angle of looking at this issue.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists