[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec1e06404931e78f91d84f0cd8df9341c9cd74d6.camel@kellner.me>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:22:24 +0200
From: Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mario.Limonciello@...l.com, yehezkelshb@...il.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, andreas.noever@...il.com,
michael.jamet@...el.com, rajmohan.mani@...el.com,
nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au, lukas@...ner.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
anthony.wong@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 17/22] thunderbolt: Add initial support for USB4
On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 18:16 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > Is there any harm of also having the 'generation' exposed
> > as well? I like the simplicity of the mapping from that value to
> > Thunderbolt/USB4 standard version (e.g. I would show that in
> > 'boltctl
> > list'); 'hw_version' will need a bit more "interpreting".
>
> If generation is the only thing you need, we can export that now and
> forget hw_version :)
Sounds good to me, that is should indeed be good enough for bolt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists