lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v8 0/6] typec: tcpm: Add sink side support for PPS
Date
On 25 April 2018 13:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:26:33AM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 03:57:49PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 03:10:55PM +0100, Adam Thomson wrote:
> > > > This patch set adds sink side support for the PPS feature introduced in the
> > > > USB PD 3.0 specification.
> > > >
> > > > The source PPS supply is represented using the Power Supply framework to
> provide
> > > > access and control APIs for dealing with it's operating voltage and current,
> > > > and switching between a standard PDO and PPS APDO operation. During
> standard PDO
> > > > operation the voltage and current is read-only, but for APDO PPS these are
> > > > writable as well to allow for control.
> > > >
> > > > It should be noted that the keepalive for PPS is not handled within TCPM. The
> > > > expectation is that the external user will be required to ensure re-requests
> > > > occur regularly to ensure PPS remains and the source does not hard reset.
> > >
> > > Sebastian, any objection from me taking this series through my USB tree?
> >
> > I currently have the power-supply bits in a local branch for
> > testing. I would like to have this in the power-supply
> > tree, since there is at least one pending driver which could
> > directly use the newly introduced usb_type.
> >
> > I can either provide an immutable branch with a signed tag, or
> > you can merged it and provide me an immutable branch.
> >
> > If you merge it via the USB tree patch 2-4 are
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk>
>
> I've applied these to a testing branch in my usb tree, and if they
> survive the 0-day bot, I'll move them to a branch that you can pull from
> that will not change.
>
> Oh, I had to add a follow-on patch to fix up a gcc warning that really
> wasn't a warning, but it saves us problems of people complaining about
> it.

Thanks Greg et al.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-25 15:13    [W:0.093 / U:4.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site