Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:20:51 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/32] usb: typec: tcpm: tcpm: Remove dangling unused
 'struct tcpm_altmode_ops'
Message-ID: <20200706142051.GA3500@dell>
References: <20200706133341.476881-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <20200706133341.476881-9-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <ca14707c-7d40-07ac-da1d-ca27a2e93dcd@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ca14707c-7d40-07ac-da1d-ca27a2e93dcd@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 06 Jul 2020, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 7/6/20 3:33 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Looks as though a079973f462a3 ("usb: typec: tcpm: Remove tcpc_config
> > configuration mechanism") pulled out the only use of 'tcpm_altmode_ops'
> > last year.  No need to keep it around.
> > 
> > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s):
> > 
> >   drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpm.c:1551:39: warning: ‘tcpm_altmode_ops’ defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=]
> >   1551 | static const struct typec_altmode_ops tcpm_altmode_ops = {
> >   | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> 
> This is necessary for adding Display port over Type-C support
> on devices using the tcpm code, rather then firmware, to do
> the Type-C alt-mode negotiation.
> 
> I have a local patch in my tree which adds support for this.
> 
> But Heikki did not like my approach, so that patch
> (which needs the bits you are removing) never landed
> upstream:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11199517/
> 
> Which is somewhat old now.

Yes, that's a just a little old now.

If it drags on for much longer, perhaps consider taking it out for the
time being and adding it back when you start to make use of it again?

> Heikki said he would look into an approach to this more to
> his liking. Heikki an progress on this area?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog