Hi Heikki, Thanks for your feedback. On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:43 AM Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:25:07AM -0700, Prashant Malani wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:17 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Given that your current implementation is not acceptable, something has > > > to change :) > > > > Got it. I'd like to see if Heikki has any suggestions on naming these > > entries better. > > Why not have product type specific attribute files? > > So if the partner is UFP, then we expose ufp1 and ufp2 files that > return the UFP1 and UFP2 VDO values and hide the other files: > > % ls /sys/class/typec/port0-partner/identity/ > id_header cert_stat product ufp1 ufp2 > > If the partner is DFP, then you expose the dfp file and hide > everything else: > > % ls /sys/class/typec/port0-partner/identity/ > id_header cert_stat product dfp > > And so on. > Makes sense, thanks! The only query I have here is , does the kernel *need* to implement this logic? Userspace can read id_header VDO and figure this on its own (parse the Product Type specific VDOs accordingly). Apart from that, I can work on implementing this if there are no concerns. Best regards, > thanks, > > -- > heikki
