From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752957AbcDFF67 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 01:58:59 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:27373 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082AbcDFF66 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 01:58:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,447,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="79929621" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port mux To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Oliver Neukum 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> Cc: Mathias Nyman , Felipe Balbi , Lee Jones , Heikki Krogerus , Chanwoo Choi , MyungJoo Ham , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org From: Lu Baolu Message-ID: <5704A59C.8040500@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:58:52 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160310235716.GB2586@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Best regards, Baolu