[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1570091132.18913.3.camel@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 10:25:32 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/22] thunderbolt: Add support for lane bonding
Am Mittwoch, den 02.10.2019, 17:30 +0300 schrieb Mika Westerberg:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:21:06PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 01.10.2019, 15:53 +0300 schrieb Mika Westerberg:
> > > >
> > > > Are we only going to be allowed to "bond" two links together? Or will
> > > > we be doing more than 2 in the future? If more, then we might want to
> > > > think of a different way to specify these...
> > >
> > > AFAICT only two lanes are available in USB4. This goes over USB type-C
> > > using the two lanes there.
> > >
> > > Of course I don't know if in future there will be USB4 1.1 or something
> > > that adds more lanes so if you think there is a better way to specify
> > > these, I'm happy to implement that instead :)
> >
> > If this ever can become asymmetric this interface is going to turn
> > around and bite.
>
> Don't think it can be asymmetric but I'm open to all ideas how to make
> it more flexible :-)
Split the the attributes into link_speed_rx and link_speed_tx. For
link_width likewise. We had the same issue with USB.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists