On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Prashant Malani wrote: > > +What: /sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/product_type > > +Date: December 2020 > > +Contact: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.kroge...@linux.intel.com> > > +Description: USB Power Delivery Specification defines a set of > > product types > > + for the cables. This file will show the product type of the > > + cable if it is known. If the product type of the cable is not > > + visible to the device driver, this file will not exist. > > + > > + When the cable product type is detected, uvevent is also raised > > + with PRODUCT_TYPE showing the product type of the cable. > > + > > + Valid values: > > + > > + ======================== ========================== > > + undefined - > > + active Active Cable > > + passive Passive Cable > > + ======================== ========================== > > There exists a /sys/class/typec/<port>-cable/type attribute (connected > to the "active" field in struct typec_cable [1]), which is supposed > to be populated by the Type C port driver. Won't the newly introduced > attribute duplicate the same information as "type"?
True. So we don't need add this for the cable separately. I'll just modify the code so that it considers also the response to Discover Identity command if we have access to it. Would it be OK if we name the file "type" instead of "product_type" also with the partners? thanks, -- heikki
