Hi Peter, On 06/06/2016 03:02 PM, Peter Chen wrote: >>>> > >> But this code is better co-work with OTG/Dual-role framework, we'd >>>> > >> better have only interface that the user can know which role for the >>>> > >> current port. >>>> > >> OTG/Dual-role framework and portmux framework are not overlapped. >>>> > >> The sysfs interface shouldn't be overlapped as well. Say, I have a >>>> > >> port >>>> > >> mux device and I have a driver for it. I am able to read the status >>>> > >> of my >>>> > >> port mux device through sysfs. This is not part of OTG/Dual-role as >>>> > >> far >>>> > >> as I can see. >>>> > >> >>> > > Then how the user wants to switch the role through the mux driver's >>> > > sysfs or dual-role switch sysfs? >>> > > >> > >> > It depends. If you have an OTG/DRD capable controllers, you need to >> > do this through OTG sysfs; otherwise you only need to switch the port. >> > > The user may not know the detail, they will do role switch according to > sysfs documentation. Yes, in your role switch case, only port mux is enough, > but for others, it needs other operations.
So we need to make it clear in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform. > > I agree with Roger that the dual-role switch part in your code is better > to use OTG framework to reduce redundancy. I agree that we should use dual-role framework for role switch. Actually, my code doesn't do this work. It only adds a generic framework for port mux device and two mux device drivers used in Intel platform. Best regards, Lu Baolu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
