From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752754AbcFGDTi (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 23:19:38 -0400 Received: from mail-am1on0072.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.56.112.72]:36512 "EHLO emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791AbcFGDTg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 23:19:36 -0400 From: Jun Li To: Roger Quadros , Lu Baolu , "Peter Chen" CC: "felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com" , "Mathias Nyman" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Lee Jones , "Heikki Krogerus" , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 2/7] usb: mux: add generic code for dual role port mux Thread-Topic: [PATCH v10 2/7] usb: mux: add generic code for dual role port mux Thread-Index: AQHRvG9p/Bw7HKLasE2LJUprPzQksJ/XXbyAgACNEACAAK3vAIAB3QMAgAE2I4CAABueAIAAQmoAgAACU6A= Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 03:03:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1464831449-8973-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <1464831449-8973-3-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20160603074113.GA30006@shlinux2> <5751AAEE.2090001@linux.intel.com> <20160604022838.GA26936@shlinux2> <5753CCFC.2060504@linux.intel.com> <20160606012557.GA16012@shlinux2> <5754E850.1020707@linux.intel.com> <57552006.7080108@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <57552006.7080108@ti.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jun.li@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [199.59.225.131] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1522460f-e7bf-4278-3611-08d38e805e9b x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;AM4PR04MB2132;5:oOfiHVaE/ILyqQc5QRs1H7nw70ryK5R5kZ55bHzTYZJIBUZBCt1Bd9uB3Niu/QS3kUQHpFfbwdvFYfSd9VivOdop86wgro8WsTisL/zAq/ONorOxrgFb4PwL5EA2HJQ9J1zH9nyzgBifbZ6Cst7sDg==;24:IUvXamskZ6+M8Lj09WxXswv2MFSwTuMn1s+nyqL9Ii9U2i+gLYLszW4eoJb4gL1uKt0eSmzIMntEmnrXK/wp/f2PtZgqjABr9yrvYtAp5K8=;7:fEver0IpwyQ9Ci6L7QlRBRMn2/a+bjqAFrIZE/jnmWmmBV756TNmPsIW4kQ8be9K7FCFoZekOiEnN6lcBqqCGkQVg4eGj8PfSQsrA4e9+RLhQoPhIs88Bz84Vq9xHqXF730W9vtMUtIahkcwz+MPUp4MUi6LMvFRaoQKe7/ZhqxR29qfS0zXKzhC/q/g1CsMbdxEpzHeZr6vYGU+RxjFkwCKnWZJKGkr9DngE/kGAk4= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM4PR04MB2132; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026);SRVR:AM4PR04MB2132;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM4PR04MB2132; x-forefront-prvs: 09669DB681 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(199003)(189002)(43544003)(2900100001)(2950100001)(105586002)(106116001)(3660700001)(106356001)(4326007)(86362001)(76576001)(11100500001)(5003600100002)(102836003)(586003)(3846002)(6116002)(5002640100001)(3280700002)(87936001)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(122556002)(8936002)(101416001)(77096005)(2906002)(93886004)(10400500002)(54356999)(97736004)(5004730100002)(9686002)(50986999)(5001770100001)(66066001)(5008740100001)(33656002)(76176999)(92566002)(68736007)(189998001)(74316001)(41533002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:AM4PR04MB2132;H:AM4PR04MB2130.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jun 2016 03:03:58.3091 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR04MB2132 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Roger > > For Mux devices implementing dual-role, the mux device driver _must_ use > OTG/dual-role core API so that a common ABI is presented to user space for > OTG/dual-role. That's the only point we have concern, do dual role switch through OTG/dual-role core, not do it by itself. > > I haven't yet looked at the mux framework but if we take care of the above > point then we are not introducing any redundancy. > Roger, actually this is my worry on OTG core: those dual role switch users just tends to do it simply by itself(straightforward and easy), not through the OTG core(some complicated in first look), this is just an example for us to convince people to select a better way:) Li Jun