On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:50:32PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Heikki, > > On 25-02-19 16:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) > > > and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support > > > pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then > > > before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from > > > the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. > > > > > > Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support > > > dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func > > > pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Should this be handled as a fix? > > AFAIK they are no users if this yet, until we've agreement > on the DT bindings and code merged for adding alt-modes > to an usb-connector node, nothing will be using this code, > so I see little use in adding a Cc: stable or some such. True. thanks, -- heikki
