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: <cb360c7d-4721-650b-f344-41e348950535@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:48:21 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 11/14/2017 05:17 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
> 

I'll give it a try. Wonder if we should make TYPEC_TCPM implicit (selected)
instead of having a dependency on it. After all, its use depends on the
selected chip. Any thoughts ?

Guenter