linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv13 2/3] 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: <1481803567.4648.8.camel@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:06:07 +0100
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv13 2/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 13:50 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:

> 1) Should we use "source" and "sink" instead of "device" and "host"
> with the prefer_role attribute after all? I was uncomfortable with
> that when we talked about it last time because the terms kept changing
> with every new Type-C specification version. But I guess "source" and
> "sink" would make sense in the end. This has been requested by several
> guys now.
> 
> 2) Can we change the way we list the supported roles? They are now
> comma separated, but can we use new line instead:
> 
>         % cat supported_data_roles
>         host
>         device
>         %
> 
> 3) Instead of the "supports_usb_power_delivery" attribute file which
> we have for the ports and partners, it seem it would be more
> interesting to know the supported USB Power Delivery Specification
> version for some, and also USB Type-C Specification version in
> separate attribute file. So basically we would have
> "usb_power_delivery_version" and "usb_typec_version" attributes
> instead or "supports_usb_power_delivery".
> 
> 
> So would these changes be OK still at this point to everybody?

Hi,

they are all right with me.

	Regards
		Oliver