Messages in this thread | | | From | Badhri Jagan Sridharan <> | Date | Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:30:23 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATHCv10 1/2] usb: USB Type-C connector class |
| |
> IMHO the uevent is cheaper. User space cannot just poll without further > infrastructure. A task needs to run to poll. A uevent can be handled > through established infrastructure.
Thanks Oliver for stating this. This is exactly what I was facing.
> OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those. > > So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in > typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or > cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver?
Yes Heikki.. That's OK for me as well. Just to get my understanding right. You are planning to add KOBJ_CHANGE uevents when current_power_role or current_data_role changes and KOBJ_ADD when new port-partner or the cable is attached. Is that right ?
Thanks, Badhri.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:09 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > >> OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those. >> >> So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in >> typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or >> cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver? > > OK by me. > > Regards > Oliver > >
| |