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

[Badhri Jagan Sridharan]

> 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 ?

Thanks,
Badhri.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:09 +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> OK by me.
>
>         Regards
>                 Oliver
>
>