Re: [PATHCv10 1/2] usb: USB Type-C connector class

From: Heikki Krogerus
Date: Wed Nov 16 2016 - 09:48:13 EST

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:30:23AM -0800, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote:
> > IMHO the uevent is cheaper. User space cannot just poll without further
> > infrastructure. A task needs to run to poll. A uevent can be handled
> > through established infrastructure.
> Thanks Oliver for stating this. This is exactly what I was facing.
> > OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those.
> >
> > So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in
> > typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or
> > cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver?
> Yes Heikki.. That's OK for me as well.
> Just to get my understanding right. You are planning to add
> KOBJ_CHANGE uevents when current_power_role or
> current_data_role changes and KOBJ_ADD when new port-partner
> or the cable is attached. Is that right ?

Yes, though I don't KOBJ_ADD separately with the partners and cables.
That uevent is sent when the device for them is registered, so it's
already there.