On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:02:53PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:48:21AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 11/14/2017 05:17 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > I'll give it a try. Wonder if we should make TYPEC_TCPM implicit (selected) > > instead of having a dependency on it. After all, its use depends on the > > selected chip. Any thoughts ? > > Sorry, I had not noticed Greg's answer. > > My proposal was kinda the opposite. To make the TYPEC user selectable: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/14/281 > > But making TYPEC_TCPM implicit works for me too. It just means the > user is asked about every Type-C and Power Delivery driver always. > I had planned to introduce a configurable TYPEC_PD for "Type-C Power Delivery support". Just not sure if UCSI would fit into that. But we can also make TYPEC configurable; I am not religious about that. Lets go with your patch, since you sent it out already and spent a lot of time writing up a description. Guenter -- 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
