From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752821AbcCaGX4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23:56 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:28347 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751454AbcCaGXy (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23:54 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,420,1455004800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="948562011" From: Felipe Balbi To: Mark Brown Cc: Baolin Wang , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sre@kernel.org, dbaryshkov@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, peter.chen@freescale.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, r.baldyga@samsung.com, yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, device-mainlining@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] gadget: Introduce the usb charger framework In-Reply-To: <20160330174458.GP2350@sirena.org.uk> References: <11ce6df3eb8a95cfed26f3321f15c98a934db642.1458128215.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org> <87h9foqnur.fsf@intel.com> <20160330174458.GP2350@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+96~g9bbc54b (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.0.90.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:21:59 +0300 Message-ID: <87vb43goag.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Brown writes: > [ text/plain ] > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:09:00PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> Baolin Wang writes: > >> > +#include >> > +#include >> > +#include >> > +#include > >> not very nice to depend on either of or platform_device here. What about >> PCI-based devices ? > > The header inclusion shouldn't be conditional though. But looking at > the patch I can't immediately see any use of these in the code anyway. fair enough, seems like removal is the way. >> > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(sdp_limit); > >> why RW ? Who's going to use these ? Also, you're not documenting this >> new sysfs file. > > If they end up not writeable should we just remove them entirely since > they should just be the spec values? if they are really just spec values, why would even let them be modified to start with ? ;-) But yeah, seems like this is not interesting to userland. =2D-=20 balbi --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW/MIIAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREyyAQAIZS3RbSoPrbADykyFxk/+Yx /85E7kpMhwwJk1gCvJCM5PIo+IViyelK7e9QSEFCir5c6spF3YVTKYhxm2OPCMAA HUWLftDnAFc07UNYcl+scGxsIUrT01kllwYvdLPKx5tQY1t4VK/3bo67KQBT+x+J p6vGhyf2bLYOVIIs/hyozi3sr24hTl2ggFn6VERXmMdgnCjQYavAsMRejOtKk6VZ fzVKv1ogPT54JJ2L157nPjFb24sHTewxp7dVeCKufwspdSUXTOrCxytXfNroxuOa cq4CpmES+w0Ywtl6GtmeMcbPvxgKNZUMNFt9Jww0RIrdSEkO5KhHNqgrPFWryY08 rUdWkJg4P1MdUP6/TnkY63JbZjY4Pn8dQ8fP/ckOmhpG+TILjsCOiUHw0DjAlrJ8 vwOTIFaSeGTOzZ4NeQdbIRiIqN/v/39iLkR8KHjHvvLcu0NG9ZeekLYi/D5FdWjr D/ucF6aZ1IRnlO8jIB+HCKoCrb9QsBFuG6Vgt54ERCN17qLf2R84n95i0aYdzrXJ lTeFRLYk3yUNiHZP1WurjpxXeV1tj7eUsTafZPsQDszsQbEwlmmlQBMX7SczYDV3 LOQlhbC+o3MqzNVXAPaju6njH+UtLYyepx4SoAMEKrGS8EdEmBJKL46bCnGoioDi 85ADTfIb16OHBs9v7cQr =ibfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--