From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758339AbcH3RAk (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:00:40 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:57085 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756292AbcH3RAi (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:00:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:00:35 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Heikki Krogerus Cc: Vincent Palatin , Greg KH , Oliver Neukum , Felipe Balbi , Bin Gao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/3] usb: USB Type-C connector class Message-ID: <20160830170035.GA29255@roeck-us.net> References: <1471867560-93494-2-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <20160825115958.GE12117@kuha.fi.intel.com> <20160826140710.GG12117@kuha.fi.intel.com> <5f073751-a725-09a2-79be-49709bcd2cf9@roeck-us.net> <20160829134303.GB16924@kuha.fi.intel.com> <20160829140739.GA10151@kuha.fi.intel.com> <20160829185049.GA7316@roeck-us.net> <20160830082227.GB10151@kuha.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160830082227.GB10151@kuha.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Authenticated_sender: guenter@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: guenter@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Heikki, On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > How about if I add the "supports_usb_power_delivery" attribute for the > partners instead to give some details about them. Any objections? > After looking into the code again, I assume the idea is to have the existing supports_usb_power_delivery attribute report if the local port supports the PD, and to have the partner attribute report if the partner supports the PD protocol. In other words, it would report the value of usb_pd in struct typec_partner. If so, I am ok with it. You might actually consider adding the same attribute to the cable attributes as well. Thanks, Guenter