Hi, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:36:52AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 12:29 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 09:58 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: >> > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:39:47PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: >> >> > >> > Yes, but we need an API. We can't keep adding to it. So if that >> > >> > is to be supported, it needs to be defined now. >> > >> >> > >> When you say API, do you mean the API the class provides to the >> > >> drivers? Or did you mean ABI which would be the sysfs in this case? >> > > >> > > The API to user space. That is the point. We cannot break user space. >> > > Once this sysfs API is upstream we are stuck with it. >> > >> > yeah, in fact I have been wondering if sysfs is the best interface to >> >> That is the discussion we must have. >> >> > userspace. I talked with Heikki a few days back about this; I was >> > wondering if something like what the NFC folks did with netlink would be >> > better here. >> >> I doubt that, because the main user is likely to be udev scripts. >> They can easily deal with sysfs attributes. > > IMHO for high level interface like this, sysfs is ideal because of the > simple fact that you only need a shell to access the files. netlink > would make us depend on custom software, no? > > I'm not against using netlink, but what would be the benefit from it > in this case? With HW we see nowadays, CC stack is hidden on some microcontroller, but is it too far-fetched to consider a system where this is not the case ? Specially when we consider things like power delivery which, I know, you wanted to keep it out of this interface, however we would have two 'stacks' competing for access to the same pins, right ? IIRC mode and role negotiation goes via CC pins using the power delivery protocol. If I misunderstand anything, let me know. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
