Hi Prashant,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:11:22AM -0800, Prashant Malani wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:05:06PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > > +What:		/sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/product_type
> > > > +Date:		December 2020
> > > > +Contact:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> > > > +Description:	USB Power Delivery Specification defines a set of product types
> > > > +		for the cables. This file will show the product type of the
> > > > +		cable if it is known. If the product type of the cable is not
> > > > +		visible to the device driver, this file will not exist.
> > > > +
> > > > +		When the cable product type is detected, uvevent is also raised
> > > > +		with PRODUCT_TYPE showing the product type of the cable.
> > > > +
> > > > +		Valid values:
> > > > +
> > > > +		========================  ==========================
> > > > +		undefined		  -
> > > > +		active			  Active Cable
> > > > +		passive			  Passive Cable
> > > > +		========================  ==========================
> > > 
> > > There exists a /sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/type attribute (connected
> > > to the "active" field in struct typec_cable [1]), which is supposed
> > > to be populated by the Type C port driver. Won't the newly introduced
> > > attribute duplicate the same information as "type"?
> > 
> > True. So we don't need add this for the cable separately. I'll just
> > modify the code so that it considers also the response to Discover
> > Identity command if we have access to it.
> > 
> > Would it be OK if we name the file "type" instead of "product_type"
> > also with the partners?
> 
> That makes the naming consistent. Sounds good to me :)

Cool. Could you test if the attached version works?

thanks,

-- 
heikki