Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:39:18 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Cc: balbi@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sre@kernel.org,
        dbaryshkov@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, peter.chen@freescale.com,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, r.baldyga@samsung.com,
        yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com, lee.jones@linaro.org,
        ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
        patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, device-mainlining@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20160315163918.GQ2566@sirena.org.uk>
References: <cover.1451876014.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <20160229142212.GB18327@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O7Os1+MGCLLi8F5z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160229142212.GB18327@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the
 usb gadget power negotation
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2015
Lines: 48


--O7Os1+MGCLLi8F5z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:22:12PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:04:26AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:

I see Felipe is no longer at TI so his e-mail was bouncing - let's
resend this with his kernel.org address:

> > Currently the Linux kernel does not provide any standard integration of this
> > feature that integrates the USB subsystem with the system power regulation
> > provided by PMICs meaning that either vendors must add this in their kernels
> > or USB gadget devices based on Linux (such as mobile phones) may not behave
> > as they should. Thus provide a standard framework for doing this in kernel.

> So, the review of this seems to have ground to a bit of a halt - we're
> really not seeing any engagement or comments here, people aren't raising
> any problems or suggesting alternative approaches but this isn't moving
> forwards either.  This means that nothing running mainline that isn't
> totally offloaded to hardware can charge at even 500mA, let alone more,
> which seems like a failure to me.  What do we need to move this
> forwards?

> If there are concerns around ABI we could either make sure it's as basic
> as possible (so that it'll be easy to maintain compatibility if we think
> of something better) or just hide things from userspace so that we just
> have the in kernel implementation.


--O7Os1+MGCLLi8F5z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW6Dq1AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQq88H/23GKtRduaM92szNSLg6jCHA
qHGplA+5sl0E/HvVrrFRgVPI4Rch4wbIuPHuo22cpCO/KxFx4kS2L5M6mTIRfO2y
nfai/yYIUex6gJchU6SXk3VyRyxzzJribdtUGNTVj51u8BaU7Fql6WyTGVDK46sK
2/NIbGiPJVk2zgZBPr5ew7KpJh90r24cz+micXN6ndTBDyMfC++braEiyJZ/l8H4
8ri3v2yXhaUJeGk+EaIBtveQlePN4sZp9Cxhpvw2eItJeWR6a/NMVb6mrNS4TbgW
ROYQlFpSG1Lykth1u4f6q1OcJqahNBoHR0pBVHpop8slfJ3mc/WVwWG478logpc=
=xNZL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--O7Os1+MGCLLi8F5z--