Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37598-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240123223039.1471557-1-abhishekpandit@google.com>
 <20240123143026.v1.3.Idf7d373c3cbb54058403cb951d644f1f09973d15@changeid>
 <CACeCKafTBwSgRXLFA3HC7cBe8hD=PSgSmR=TWy1oF3Rkn+hK4g@mail.gmail.com> <CANFp7mUFvRnb1BF=vzNE+BxMcjZi_o0wwJVw=Ty+zEG+JTzA1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANFp7mUFvRnb1BF=vzNE+BxMcjZi_o0wwJVw=Ty+zEG+JTzA1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:34:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CACeCKacH4zJGNqFKjLoaHzM59nSGdaWkNXec2GM=0kfafPBgqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] usb: typec: ucsi: Get PD revision for partner
To: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@chromium.org>
Cc: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@google.com>, 
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, 
	jthies@google.com, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>, 
	Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@foss.st.com>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, 
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>, Saranya Gopal <saranya.gopal@intel.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:18=E2=80=AFAM Abhishek Pandit-Subedi
<abhishekpandit@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:49=E2=80=AFAM Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromiu=
m.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Abhishek,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:30=E2=80=AFPM Abhishek Pandit-Subedi
> > <abhishekpandit@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@chromium.org>
> > >
> > > PD major revision for the port partner is described in
> > > GET_CONNECTOR_CAPABILITY and is only valid on UCSI 2.0 and newer. Upd=
ate
> > > the pd_revision on the partner if the UCSI version is 2.0 or newer.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > $ cat /sys/class/typec/port2-partner/usb_power_delivery_revision
> > > 3.0
> > >
> > >  drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.h |  3 +++
> > >  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/u=
csi.c
> > > index 4edf785d203b..8e0a512853ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > > @@ -782,6 +782,8 @@ static int ucsi_register_partner(struct ucsi_conn=
ector *con)
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         desc.usb_pd =3D pwr_opmode =3D=3D UCSI_CONSTAT_PWR_OPMODE_PD;
> > > +       desc.pd_revision =3D
> > > +               UCSI_CONCAP_FLAG_PARTNER_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(con->cap=
flags);
> > >
> > >         partner =3D typec_register_partner(con->port, &desc);
> > >         if (IS_ERR(partner)) {
> > > @@ -856,6 +858,28 @@ static void ucsi_partner_change(struct ucsi_conn=
ector *con)
> > >                         con->num, u_role);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static int ucsi_check_connector_capability(struct ucsi_connector *co=
n)
> > > +{
> > > +       u64 command;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       if (!con->partner && !IS_MIN_VERSION_2_0(con->ucsi))
> >
> > (Mentioned side-band but reproducing here for consistency)
> > This macro is unnecessary. It's just doing a comparison, which can be i=
nlined
> > without any perceptible change in readability (actually, I'd argue addi=
ng the !
> > to an english idiom makes things *less* readable):
>
> I prefer the macro because it makes it easier to search where version
> checks are being done.

I don't see how searching for "IS_MIN_VERSION_2_0" is easier
than just searching for "UCSI_VERSION_2_0".

I didn't quite understand what you meant by

>  it keeps the `<` vs `<=3D` consistent.

Perhaps I'm missing something... (are these comparisons being
used elsewhere/in some other fashion?).

In any case, I don't want to bike-shed so I'll defer to the
maintainer's call on this.

BR,

-Prashant