From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758489AbcEFOKw (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2016 10:10:52 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:35793 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757922AbcEFOKt (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2016 10:10:49 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] usb: USB Type-C Class and driver for UCSI To: Heikki Krogerus References: <1455037283-106479-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <20160505030544.GA25632@roeck-us.net> <87h9ebistj.fsf@intel.com> <572C5031.50805@roeck-us.net> <20160506082914.GD29820@kuha.fi.intel.com> Cc: Felipe Balbi , Greg KH , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mathias Nyman From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <572CA5DE.8010404@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 07:10:38 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160506082914.GD29820@kuha.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Heikki, On 05/06/2016 01:29 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 01:05:05AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: [ ... ] >> I know there has been a lengthy discussion about the patch set, but I may >> have missed the conclusion. Is there some reason to _not_ advance it >> that I may have missed ? > > No, we are still continuing with the class driver. We just descided to > split the UCIS into separate driver for now, just because we needed it > to be supported fast. But I did mention in the commit message of the > UCSI patch that the goal is to merge that into a Type-C framework once > it's awailable. > Yes, I noticed. I had suspected that your need for a driver now was the reason for the stand-alone driver. Felipe's response got me concerned for a minute, though. Thanks, Guenter