On 29 October 2016 at 01:03, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:51:41PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> On 28 October 2016 at 06:00, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > 1/ I think we agreed that it doesn't make sense for there to be >> > two chargers registered in a system. > >> Yes, until now... > >> > However usb_charger_register() still allows that, and assigns >> > and arbitrary name to each based on discovery order. >> > This *cannot* make sense. > >> Fine, I can change that to allow only one charger to register. > > Yeah, it's a reasonable change. I'm not sure the prior discussion was > 100% conclusive on the issue (I remember there being some debate about > leaving things there to avoid any need for future refactoring to touch > the interface). I think we should leave these things to avoid refactoring in future. > >> > 2/ Why do you have usb_charger_set_current()?? >> > No code ever calls it. >> > This updates the min and max current which are defined in a >> > standard. It never makes sense to change the min and max >> > for a particular cable type. > >> Mark, do we have some scenarios which want to change the current >> limitation? If not, okay, I agree with you to remove this function. > > I'm not aware of any, we can always add it back if the need arises. OK. > >> > Related: I don't like charger_type_show(). I don't think >> > the usb-charger should export that information to user-space because >> > extcon already does that, and duplication is confusing and pointless. > >> I think we should combine all charger related information into one >> place for user. Moreover if we don't get charger type from extcon, we >> should also need one place to export the charger type. > > I had also thought there was some software negotation as well as the > physical charger in cases where the device is plugged into an active > host? I could be wrong. > >> > 5/ There is no convincing example usage of this framework. >> > wm8931x_power.c just scratches the surface. >> > If it is so good, it should be easy to convert a lot of other >> > drivers over to it. If you did that it would be much easier >> > to see how it works and what the strengths/weaknesses were. > >> Jun have send out one patchset[1] based on my patchset, and he tested >> mypatchset. Thanks for your comments. >> [1]http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg139809.html > > I think it's a good idea to pick up Jun's patches into your patch set, > that way Jun doesn't need to rebase and it might help with review of > your patches too. Yes, I think so. I will ask for Jun's help. -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- 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
