From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932410AbcE0H3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 03:29:37 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:3676 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755497AbcE0H3f (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 03:29:35 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,372,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="111440851" Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:29:02 +0300 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Oliver Neukum , Andy Shevchenko , Rajaram R , Felipe Balbi , Mathias Nyman , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2] usb: USB Type-C Connector Class Message-ID: <20160527072902.GA22411@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <1463661894-22820-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <20160524192826.GA28453@roeck-us.net> <20160525115135.GD27570@kuha.fi.intel.com> <5745A6F2.6000406@roeck-us.net> <20160525140429.GE27570@kuha.fi.intel.com> <1464186056.2132.12.camel@suse.com> <20160525145957.GA19413@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160525145957.GA19413@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 07:59:57AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 17:04 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > > > I'm not against leaving the responsibility of registering the alternate > > > modes to the drivers. I'm a little bit worried about relying then on > > > the drivers to also handle the unregistering accordingly, but I can > > > live with that. But we just shouldn't share the responsibility of > > > un/registering them between the class and the drivers, so the driver > > > should then handle the registration always. > > > > > > Oliver, what do you think? > > > > Either will do for me. Registration by the drivers is a bit better. > > But it has to be the one or the other. Mixing is indeed bad. > > > Same here. I don't have any problems handling unregistering > from the driver. I just have to keep track of the state and call > typec_unregister_altmodes() before calling typec_disconnect(). > > Having to wait for mode discovery to complete before calling > typec_connect() is much more complicated, at least with my current > code. OK, so we'll change this and make the driver take care of the registration. -- heikki