Hi Heikki, On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Prashant Malani wrote: > > > +What: /sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/product_type > > > +Date: December 2020 > > > +Contact: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > +Description: USB Power Delivery Specification defines a set of product types > > > + for the cables. This file will show the product type of the > > > + cable if it is known. If the product type of the cable is not > > > + visible to the device driver, this file will not exist. > > > + > > > + When the cable product type is detected, uvevent is also raised > > > + with PRODUCT_TYPE showing the product type of the cable. > > > + > > > + Valid values: > > > + > > > + ======================== ========================== > > > + undefined - > > > + active Active Cable > > > + passive Passive Cable > > > + ======================== ========================== > > > > There exists a /sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/type attribute (connected > > to the "active" field in struct typec_cable [1]), which is supposed > > to be populated by the Type C port driver. Won't the newly introduced > > attribute duplicate the same information as "type"? > > True. So we don't need add this for the cable separately. I'll just > modify the code so that it considers also the response to Discover > Identity command if we have access to it. > > Would it be OK if we name the file "type" instead of "product_type" > also with the partners? That makes the naming consistent. Sounds good to me :) Best regards, -Prashant
