On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Other major thing is the typec code that moved out of staging and into
> the "real" part of the drivers/usb/ tree, which was nice to see happen.
Hmm. So now it asks me about Type-C Port Controller Manager. Fair
enough. I say "N", because I have none. But then it still asks me
about that TI TPS6598x driver...
So I do see the _technical_ logic in there - the "TYPEC" config option
is a hidden internal option, and it's selected by the things that need
it.
But from a user perspective, this configuration model is really strange.
Why is TYPEC_TCPM something you ask the user, but not "do you want
Type-C support"? And if you single out the PCM side to ask about, why
don't you single out the power delivery side?
Wouldn't it make more sense to at least ask whether I want Type-C
power delivery chips before it then starts asking about individual PD
drivers, the same way you asked about the port controller before you
started asking ab out individual port controller drivers?
Or is it just me who finds this a bit odd?
Linus
--
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
