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: <20171114132333.GB25207@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:23:33 +0200
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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?

True. The options were made originally the way they are as the
assumption was that the OS will always handle the USB Type-C and PD
state machines, meaning we would always depend on the Type-C Port
Controller Manager, which of course is not the case any more.

Would the attached patch be sufficient?


Thanks,

-- 
heikki

View attachment "0001-usb-add-user-selectable-option-for-the-whole-USB-Typ.patch" of type "text/plain" (5109 bytes)