Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年10月5日 週一 下午11:30寫道： > > On 10/5/20 4:08 AM, Greg KH wrote: > [ ... ] > >>> What ever happened with this patch, is there still disagreement? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, there is. I wouldn't have added the conditional without reason, > >> and I am concerned that removing it entirely will open another problem. > >> Feel free to apply, though - I can't prove that my concern is valid, > >> and after all we'll get reports from the field later if it is. > > > > Ok, can I get an ack so I know who to come back to in the future if > > there are issues? :) > > > > Not from me, for the reasons I stated. I would be ok with something like: > > - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port)) > + if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) || > + (tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc1) && tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc2))) > > to narrow down the condition. I have tried the above comment and It doesn't work. How about to change the judgement like as below - if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port)) + if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) || !port->vbus_present) The hard_reset_count not reset issue is following by the below order 1. VBUS off ( at the same time, cc is still detected as attached) port->attached become false and cc is not open 2. After that, cc detached. due to port->attached is false, tcpm_detach() directly return. And that's why hard_reset_count is not reset to 0. > > Guenter
