lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Remove connection for the alt mode mux
From
Date
Hi,

On 28-01-19 16:27, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:44:29AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 28-01-19 10:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:17 PM Heikki Krogerus
>>> <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Driver for fusb302 does not support alternate modes, so the
>>>> connection is not really needed for now. Removing that
>>>> connection description allows us to improve the USB Type-C
>>>> mux API.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
>>> supposed to go via USB tree.
>>
>> I missed the original posting of this, so let me reply here:
>>
>> Nack to this change, I've a patch-set in the works to
>> make display-port over type-c work with 2 devices with a fusb302
>> mux and that needs this connection.
>
> I can add the connections back in this series after the API
> modification patches, but should the connections be added back only
> after we actually support the alt mode in the driver?
>
> Btw. I'm preparing patches where I remove struct tcpc_config
> completely. We can do that by taking advantage of the software fwnodes
> (I'll send the patches RFC to give you an idea what I'm talking about).
>
> That's related as we don't need struct tcpc_config for anything else
> except for alternate modes (which no driver supports currently) after
> that series, and even with the alt modes, it's only a question of
> supplying DT bindings that define the appropriate device properties.
>
> Also, as a "heads-up": As I explained in the cover-letter, my plan is
> to take advantage of the software fwnodes also with the connections.
> By adding support for reference handling to the software nodes, we
> don't need to maintain the list of connections as we do today. And
> more importantly, we don't need to match using device names, which is
> always fragile.
>
> That means we will change the connection registration, actually,
> remove connection registration :-). The connections after that can
> always be described in the fwnode for the device.

I see that you've posted a v2 series now and that you've kept the dev_name
matching for platforms where there are no fwnodes to match on, thanks.

I've just reviewed the v2 series and it looks good to me, I will reply
there.

Regards,

Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 11:05    [W:0.093 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site