From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755114AbdKNPHV (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:07:21 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:24543 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660AbdKNPHT (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:07:19 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,395,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="1781406" Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:02:53 +0200 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , USB list Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1 Message-ID: <20171114150253.GC25207@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <20171113161938.GA29275@kroah.com> <20171114131730.GA2178@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter, On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:48:21AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/14/2017 05:17 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:29:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > Other major thing is the typec code that moved out of staging and into > > > > the "real" part of the drivers/usb/ tree, which was nice to see happen. > > > > > > Hmm. So now it asks me about Type-C Port Controller Manager. Fair > > > enough. I say "N", because I have none. But then it still asks me > > > about that TI TPS6598x driver... > > > > > > So I do see the _technical_ logic in there - the "TYPEC" config option > > > is a hidden internal option, and it's selected by the things that need > > > it. > > > > > > But from a user perspective, this configuration model is really strange. > > > > > > Why is TYPEC_TCPM something you ask the user, but not "do you want > > > Type-C support"? And if you single out the PCM side to ask about, why > > > don't you single out the power delivery side? > > > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to at least ask whether I want Type-C > > > power delivery chips before it then starts asking about individual PD > > > drivers, the same way you asked about the port controller before you > > > started asking ab out individual port controller drivers? > > > > > > Or is it just me who finds this a bit odd? > > > > Yes, it is odd, but then again, so is typec :( > > > > I think this is an artifact of the code living in two different > > directories for a while (drivers/staging/ and drivers/usb) and now > > coming together. > > > > Guenter, can you make up a patch to fix up the Kconfig entries in > > drivers/usb/typec/Kconfig to make a bit more sense now that things are > > all living in the same place in the tree? > > > > I'll give it a try. Wonder if we should make TYPEC_TCPM implicit (selected) > instead of having a dependency on it. After all, its use depends on the > selected chip. Any thoughts ? Sorry, I had not noticed Greg's answer. My proposal was kinda the opposite. To make the TYPEC user selectable: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/14/281 But making TYPEC_TCPM implicit works for me too. It just means the user is asked about every Type-C and Power Delivery driver always. Thanks, -- heikki