On Thursday, January 21st, 2021 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would not call it USB. I could imagine that at some point a generic > > USB protocol could serve simple displays (i.e. in the sense of USB HID > > or data or imaging). (Maybe Thunderbold already counts.) Anyway, USB > > should be reserved for this case. > > We end up calling those DisplayPort, since that's what's being > transported over thunderbolt or usb-C. So the usb connector would be > called usb-C. I think the reason we don't do fancy connector names is > that adding them is a bit a pain. Plus drm/i915 specifically has some > very quirky connector enumerating that doesn't match much with reality > unfortunately anyway :-/ Maybe could add "USB-C" to the list of subconnector types and use that?
