[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aN5fpicXs-JwKvQo@tzungbi-laptop>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 19:19:02 +0800
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@...omium.org>,
Jameson Thies <jthies@...gle.com>,
Andrei Kuchynski <akuchynski@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] usb: typec: thunderbolt: Fix Thunderbolt adapter
type bitfield values
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
>
> The value has been amended with the release of the USB Type-C
> Specification v2.1, reportedly as an erratum.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
> I bundled a change to the CrOS EC driver based on the assumption that
> it worked around the faulty definition. I see the Intel PMC mux driver
> also checks for this bit, but it seems like that driver assumes that
> the value is in-spec (i.e. it may be buggy as of right now).
>
> Adding the respective maintainers to make sure everyone can see this.
I have no context to review the patch. However, the prefix of patch title
should be "platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec:".
Hi CHROMEOS EC USB TYPE-C maintainers,
Does the patch make sense to you?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists