From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933970AbcDFJ3z (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:29:55 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48329 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933799AbcDFJ3x (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:29:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 05:29:50 -0400 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Lu Baolu Cc: Oliver Neukum , Mathias Nyman , Felipe Balbi , Lee Jones , Heikki Krogerus , Chanwoo Choi , MyungJoo Ham , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port mux Message-ID: <20160406092950.GC29930@kroah.com> References: <1457423628-3183-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <1457423628-3183-4-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <1457613583.2411.11.camel@suse.com> <20160310235716.GB2586@kroah.com> <5704A59C.8040500@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5704A59C.8040500@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:58:52PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/11/2016 07:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > >> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 15:53 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > >> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform > >>> index 5172a61..a2261cb 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform > >>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform > >>> @@ -18,3 +18,18 @@ Description: > >>> devices to opt-out of driver binding using a driver_override > >>> name such as "none". Only a single driver may be specified in > >>> the override, there is no support for parsing delimiters. > >>> + > >>> +What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../intel_mux > >> Hi, > >> > >> is there any reason to call this "intel_mux"? We want a common interface > >> for such things. So how about "role_mux" or "master_slave_mux"? > > I agree, don't make this intel specific, as it shouldn't be. > > > > By the way, do you expect a class for port mux in sysfs? Why would you create a class? What is that going to do here? What happened to getting internal help in designing this api? This shouldn't be my job :) thanks, greg k-h