linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1

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: <20171114131730.GA2178@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:17:30 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:29:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Other major thing is the typec code that moved out of staging and into
> > the "real" part of the drivers/usb/ tree, which was nice to see happen.
> 
> Hmm. So now it asks me about Type-C Port Controller Manager. Fair
> enough. I say "N", because I have none. But then it still asks me
> about that TI TPS6598x driver...
> 
> So I do see the _technical_ logic in there - the "TYPEC" config option
> is a hidden internal option, and it's selected by the things that need
> it.
> 
> But from a user perspective, this configuration model is really strange.
> 
> Why is TYPEC_TCPM something you ask the user, but not "do you want
> Type-C support"?  And if you single out the PCM side to ask about, why
> don't you single out the power delivery side?
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to at least ask whether I want Type-C
> power delivery chips before it then starts asking about individual PD
> drivers, the same way you asked about the port controller before you
> started asking ab out individual port controller drivers?
> 
> Or is it just me who finds this a bit odd?

Yes, it is odd, but then again, so is typec :(

I think this is an artifact of the code living in two different
directories for a while (drivers/staging/ and drivers/usb) and now
coming together.

Guenter, can you make up a patch to fix up the Kconfig entries in
drivers/usb/typec/Kconfig to make a bit more sense now that things are
all living in the same place in the tree?

thanks,

greg k-h