On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 06:08:07PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 17:57, Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 17:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 05:44:39PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > The interface between UCSI and the glue driver is very low-level. It > > > > allows reading the UCSI data from any offset (but in reality the UCSI > > > > driver reads only VERSION, CCI an MESSAGE_IN data). All event handling > > > > is to be done by the glue driver (which already resulted in several > > > > similar-but-slightly different implementations). It leaves no place to > > > > optimize the write-read-read sequence for the command execution (which > > > > might be beneficial for some of the drivers), etc. > > > > > > > > The patchseries attempts to restructure the UCSI glue driver interface > > > > in order to provide sensible operations instead of a low-level read / > > > > write calls. > > > > > > > > If this approach is found to be acceptable, I plan to further rework the > > > > command interface, moving reading CCI and MESSAGE_IN to the common > > > > control code, which should simplify driver's implementation and remove > > > > necessity to split quirks between sync_control and read_message_in e.g. > > > > as implemented in the ucsi_ccg.c. > > > > > > > > Note, the series was tested only on the ucsi_glink platforms. Further > > > > testing is appreciated. > > > > > > > > Depends: [1], [2] > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20240612124656.2305603-1-fabrice.gasnier@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20240621-ucsi-yoga-ec-driver-v8-1-e03f3536b8c6@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - Rebased on top of Greg's tree to resolve conflicts. > > > > > > Nope, still got conflicts, are you sure you updated properly? Patch 1 > > > applied, but #2 did not. > > > > I feel stupid enough now. I rebased on top of usb-next instead of > > usb-testing. Let me spam it once again > > Hmm, I see what happened. I had a next+usb-next. Simple usb-next > doesn't contain changes from 9e3caa9dd51b ("usb: typec: ucsi_acpi: Add > LG Gram quirk") which this patch also modifies. I can rebase it on top > of your tree, but then we will have build issues once usb-linus and > usb-next get merged together. Ah, you need/want stuff from both branches, right? Then just wait until next week when my -linus branch will be in Linus's tree and then I will merge that into the -next branch. thanks, greg k-h
