On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:29:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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? Yes, it is odd, but then again, so is typec :( I think this is an artifact of the code living in two different directories for a while (drivers/staging/ and drivers/usb) and now coming together. Guenter, can you make up a patch to fix up the Kconfig entries in drivers/usb/typec/Kconfig to make a bit more sense now that things are all living in the same place in the tree? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
