Hi Baolu > -----Original Message----- > From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu...@linux.intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:27 PM > To: Jun Li <jun...@nxp.com>; Roger Quadros <rog...@ti.com>; Peter Chen > <hzpeterc...@gmail.com> > Cc: felipe.ba...@linux.intel.com; Mathias Nyman <mathias.ny...@intel.com>; > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>; Lee Jones > <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Heikki Krogerus <heikki.kroge...@linux.intel.com>; > Liam Girdwood <lgirdw...@gmail.com>; Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; > linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/7] usb: mux: add generic code for dual role port > mux > > Hi Jun, > > On 06/07/2016 11:03 AM, Jun Li wrote: > > 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. > > That really depends on how do you define "dual role". Can you please > provide an unambiguous definition of "dual role" used in OTG/dual-role > framework?
Host and peripheral. > > Best regards, > Lu Baolu > > > > >> 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 > >
