Re: [GIT PULL] USB/PHY driver changes for 4.15-rc1

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/14/2017 05:17 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:29:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Other major thing is the typec code that moved out of staging and into
> > > the "real" part of the drivers/usb/ tree, which was nice to see happen.
> >
> > Hmm. So now it asks me about Type-C Port Controller Manager. Fair
> > enough. I say "N", because I have none. But then it still asks me
> > about that TI TPS6598x driver...
> >
> > So I do see the _technical_ logic in there - the "TYPEC" config option
> > is a hidden internal option, and it's selected by the things that need
> > it.
> >
> > But from a user perspective, this configuration model is really strange.
> >
> > Why is TYPEC_TCPM something you ask the user, but not "do you want
> > Type-C support"?  And if you single out the PCM side to ask about, why
> > don't you single out the power delivery side?
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to at least ask whether I want Type-C
> > power delivery chips before it then starts asking about individual PD
> > drivers, the same way you asked about the port controller before you
> > started asking ab out individual port controller drivers?
> >
> > Or is it just me who finds this a bit odd?
>
> Yes, it is odd, but then again, so is typec :(
>
> I think this is an artifact of the code living in two different
> directories for a while (drivers/staging/ and drivers/usb) and now
> coming together.
>
> Guenter, can you make up a patch to fix up the Kconfig entries in
> drivers/usb/typec/Kconfig to make a bit more sense now that things are
> all living in the same place in the tree?

I'll give it a try. Wonder if we should make TYPEC_TCPM implicit (selected)
instead of having a dependency on it. After all, its use depends on the
selected chip. Any thoughts ?

Guenter