From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753241AbcHPHid (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 03:38:33 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:1927 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752985AbcHPHib (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2016 03:38:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="866127554" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:38:26 +0300 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Guenter Roeck , Greg KH , Rajaram R , Felipe Balbi , Roger Quadros , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] USB Type-C Connector class Message-ID: <20160816073826.GB9927@kuha.fi.intel.com> References: <1467207518-55953-1-git-send-email-heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> <20160809140153.GA9104@kroah.com> <20160809162336.GB9105@roeck-us.net> <1470817165.2238.1.camel@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1470817165.2238.1.camel@suse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi guys, Sorry for the long silence. I just returned from paternal leave. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:19:25AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 09:23 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > I'm not going to take this series until everyone agrees on it, > > sorry. > > > I'll wait for you and Guenter and Oliver to all come up with a > > solution > > > that works for everyone. > > > > > > > I have not heard from Heikko for a while. There have been some > > follow-up > > patches in > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/balbi/usb.git/log/?h=bxt-typec-pd-fixes > > > > but I am not really sure where this is going. I've been wondering if I > > can/should get more actively involved and start driving the series if > > Heikki is busy. Thoughts, anyone ? > > It is not clear to me where we were. It seems to me that we found > the API good but disagreed about locking. Does that sum it up? I'll remove the locks and resend. Thanks, -- heikki