From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752031AbcFFNfk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:35:40 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58611 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751767AbcFFNfi (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:35:38 -0400
Message-ID: <1465220135.27057.3.camel@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2] usb: USB Type-C Connector Class
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Rajaram R <rajaram.officemail@gmail.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:35:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20160606132808.GA11617@kuha.fi.intel.com>
References: <1463661894-22820-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
	 <1464773169.4051.8.camel@suse.com> <20160601232926.GA8463@roeck-us.net>
	 <20160602101853.GC25305@kuha.fi.intel.com>
	 <20160602161219.GA24772@roeck-us.net>
	 <20160603132140.GB6305@kuha.fi.intel.com> <57518B7A.1030508@roeck-us.net>
	 <20160603151746.GC6305@kuha.fi.intel.com>
	 <20160603183927.GA12659@roeck-us.net>
	 <20160606132808.GA11617@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:28 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:

> I would prefer lower case letters. I don't know the SIDs there are at
> them moment, other then Display Port. Do you know them?
> 
> I don't think we can ever guarantee that in every case we will be able
> to provide a human readable name for the alternate modes if they are
> vendor defined. We will then potentially still have the names in two
> different forms: "usbc0.displayport" and "usbc0.svid:xxxx". Is that
> something acceptable to everybody?
> 
> I guess if it's not, then to only way to go forward would be to always
> just use the svid in the name.

Yes, that is better. It makes more sense to use the number.
We'd get into versioning problems if we use names.

	Regards
		Oliver