On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:30:23AM -0800, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > > IMHO the uevent is cheaper. User space cannot just poll without further > > infrastructure. A task needs to run to poll. A uevent can be handled > > through established infrastructure. > > Thanks Oliver for stating this. This is exactly what I was facing. > > > OK, I'll add KOBJ_CHANGE for those. > > > > So is it OK to everybody if I remove the KOBJ_CHANGE in > > typec_connect()? We will see uevent KOBJ_ADD since the partner (or > > cable) is added in any case. Badhri, Oliver? > > Yes Heikki.. That's OK for me as well. > Just to get my understanding right. You are planning to add > KOBJ_CHANGE uevents when current_power_role or > current_data_role changes and KOBJ_ADD when new port-partner > or the cable is attached. Is that right ?
Yes, though I don't KOBJ_ADD separately with the partners and cables. That uevent is sent when the device for them is registered, so it's already there. Br, -- heikki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
