Re: [usb:usb-testing 155/155] drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c:778:8: error: 'CABLE_ATYPE' undeclared; did you mean

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hey Kyle,

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:48 AM Kyle Tso <kyletso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:40 AM Benson Leung <bleung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 7:39 AM Kyle Tso <kyletso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Prashant and Benson,
> > >
> > > I just got this notification that my patch "usb: pd: Update VDO
> > > definitions" caused this build break.
> > > The root cause is that I removed the definitions of Type-A and Type-B
> > > in Product Type VDOs as they have already been deprecated.
> > > And it's my bad that I didn't notice that someone else uses these definitions...
> > >
> > > I can fix it by simply removing them in the switch case but I am not
> > > sure whether they need to be kept for some reason (compatibility ?)
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Strictly speaking, Type-A and Type-B definitions here are deprecated
> > in PD 3.0, but PD 3.0 implementations have to be able to fall back to
> > PD 2.0 protocol when the port partner or cable is PD 2.0 only.
> >
> > In the last version of the PD 2.0 specification released, the Type-A
> > and Type-B definitions still remain, so we can't really remove them
> > from the Kernel until all of PD 2.0 is deprecated.
> >
> > They're very rare cables, but I have seen a PD 2.0 cable with an
> > e-marker that indicates Type-B here.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Benson
> >
> > --
> > Benson Leung
> > Staff Software Engineer
> > Chrome OS Kernel
> > Google Inc.
> > bleung@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Chromium OS Project
> > bleung@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Thanks for the clarification! makes sense to me.
> I will provide the fix as soon as possible.
>
> thanks,
> Kyle

There are actually other fields where this is problematic, if you just
deleted a bunch of options that existed in PD 2.0 but not in PD 3.0.

I posted a response on the list. Short summary: I think we need to
bring back the whole set of PD 2.0 definitions in parallel with the PD
3.0 ones, and put switches everywhere based on pd_revision.

Let me know if I can provide more help here. I saw this coming a
little while ago, which is why I wanted to get the pd revision stuff
in.

Thanks,
Benson

-- 
Benson Leung
Staff Software Engineer
Chrome OS Kernel
Google Inc.
bleung@xxxxxxxxxx
Chromium OS Project
bleung@xxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux