On 28 November 2017 02:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 05:38 PM, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Adam Thomson
> > wrote:
> >> On 16 November 2017 01:02, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> >>
> >>> At present, TCPM code assumes that local device supports
>
On 28 November 2017 01:38, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > examples in the kernel where this happens. Where are these functions likely
> > to
> > be called from, as wherever that is it will need a reference to the port?
> > Actually should we be adding DT bindings to set supported src/snk PDOs
On 11/27/2017 05:38 PM, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Adam Thomson
wrote:
On 16 November 2017 01:02, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
At present, TCPM code assumes that local device supports
variable/batt pdos and always selects the pdo with highest
possible powe
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Adam Thomson
wrote:
> On 16 November 2017 01:02, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
>
>> At present, TCPM code assumes that local device supports
>> variable/batt pdos and always selects the pdo with highest
>> possible power within the board limit. This assumption
>> m
On 16 November 2017 01:02, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> At present, TCPM code assumes that local device supports
> variable/batt pdos and always selects the pdo with highest
> possible power within the board limit. This assumption
> might not hold good for all devices. To overcome this,
> this
At present, TCPM code assumes that local device supports
variable/batt pdos and always selects the pdo with highest
possible power within the board limit. This assumption
might not hold good for all devices. To overcome this,
this patch makes TCPM only accept a source_pdo when there is
a matching s
