[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161116144348.GC30235@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:43:48 +0200
From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
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, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:30:23AM -0800, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks Oliver for stating this. This is exactly what I was facing.
>
> > OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those.
> >
> > So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in
> > typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or
> > cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver?
>
> Yes Heikki.. That's OK for me as well.
> Just to get my understanding right. You are planning to add
> KOBJ_CHANGE uevents when current_power_role or
> current_data_role changes and KOBJ_ADD when new port-partner
> or the cable is attached. Is that right ?
Yes, though I don't KOBJ_ADD separately with the partners and cables.
That uevent is sent when the device for them is registered, so it's
already there.
Br,
--
heikki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists