On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 11:39:27AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 06:17:46PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > [ ... ] > > > > > > > > > > In my test case, this gives me > > > > > /sys/class/type-c/usbc0/ > > > > > usbc0.svid:18d1 > > > > > usbc0.svid:18d1/mode0 > > > > > usbc0.svid:18d1/mode0/vdo > > > > > usbc0.svid:18d1/mode0/description > > > > > usbc0.svid:18d1/mode0/active > > > > > ... > > > > > usbc0.svid:ff01 > > > > > usbc0.svid:ff01/mode0/vdo > > > > > usbc0.svid:ff01/mode0/description > > > > > usbc0.svid:ff01/mode0/active > > > > > > Side note: I didn't provide a description/name for the modes, because that > > > would result in something like usbc0.DisplayPort/ instead of usbc0.svid:ff01/, > > > and I prefer a consistent ABI. Since this _is_ part of the ABI, would it make > > > sense to standardize on names for modes in sysfs ? For example, how should > > > a "Display Port" mode directory be named ? It doesn't sound good if I > > > use "usbc0.svid:ff01", someone else uses "usbc0.DisplayPort", and yet > > > someone else uses "usbc0.displayport". > > > > Yeah, let's make them standard. > > > Any name preferences ? I would prefer lower case letters. I don't know the SIDs there are at them moment, other then Display Port. Do you know them? I don't think we can ever guarantee that in every case we will be able to provide a human readable name for the alternate modes if they are vendor defined. We will then potentially still have the names in two different forms: "usbc0.displayport" and "usbc0.svid:xxxx". Is that something acceptable to everybody? I guess if it's not, then to only way to go forward would be to always just use the svid in the name. > > > Also, do we at some point need to standardize the ABI for the standard > > > alternate modes such as DisplayPort (if there are any - again I am not > > > there yet) ? > > > > I don't have an answer to that. > > > Ok, I'll look into it as I proceed with my implementation. > > > > > > > Sounds good to me. Many other subsystems do the same, ie create the subsystem > > > device(s) during registration with the subsystem, so this is in line with other > > > kernel code. > > > > > > Should I send you a follow-up patch on top of yours ? > > > > Sure. I'm a little bit stuck with an other tasks, so let's keep this > > thing rolling. > > > See below. Thanks. I pushed it to my work branch for this class: https://github.com/krohei/linux/commits/typec_class There are still a few open questions, but I'm in any case going to start polishing the driver. I think the other attributes are more or less decided, excluding the alternate modes. Cheers, -- heikki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
