Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] usb: typec: Add mode_control field to port property

Andrei Kuchynski
2025-09-10T19:35:07Z

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 1:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 02:22:02PM +0000, Andrei Kuchynski wrote:
> > This new field in the port properties dictates whether the Platform Policy
> > Manager (PPM) allows the OS Policy Manager (OPM) to change the currently
> > active, negotiated alternate mode.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Kuchynski <akuchynski@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/typec/class.c | 9 ++++++---
> > drivers/usb/typec/class.h | 2 ++
> > include/linux/usb/typec.h | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/class.c b/drivers/usb/typec/class.c
> > index 67a533e35150..9f86605ce125 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/class.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/class.c
> > @@ -457,11 +457,13 @@ static umode_t typec_altmode_attr_is_visible(struct kobject *kobj,
> > struct attribute *attr, int n)
> > {
> > struct typec_altmode *adev = to_typec_altmode(kobj_to_dev(kobj));
> > + struct typec_port *port = typec_altmode2port(adev);
> >
> > if (attr == &dev_attr_active.attr)
> > - if (!is_typec_port(adev->dev.parent) &&
> > - (!adev->ops || !adev->ops->activate))
> > - return 0444;
> > + if (!is_typec_port(adev->dev.parent)) {
> > + if (!port->mode_control || !adev->ops || !adev->ops->activate)
> > + return 0444;
> > + }
> >
> > return attr->mode;
> > }
> > @@ -2681,6 +2683,7 @@ struct typec_port *typec_register_port(struct device *parent,
> > }
> >
> > port->pd = cap->pd;
> > + port->mode_control = !cap->no_mode_control;
> >
> > ret = device_add(&port->dev);
> > if (ret) {
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/class.h b/drivers/usb/typec/class.h
> > index db2fe96c48ff..c53a04b9dc75 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/class.h
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/class.h
> > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ struct typec_port {
> > */
> > struct device *usb2_dev;
> > struct device *usb3_dev;
> > +
> > + bool mode_control;
>
> Shouldn't this go up higher in this structure, to avoid the hole you
> created, and to take advantage of the existing hole? Perhaps after
> orientation?
>

I will replace the variable.

Thanks,
Andrei