Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1345865 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the usb gadget power negotation

Started byMark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
First post2016-02-29 15:30 +0100
Last post2016-02-29 15:30 +0100
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the  usb gadget power negotation Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-02-29 15:30 +0100

#1345865 — Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the usb gadget power negotation

FromMark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date2016-02-29 15:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce usb charger framework to deal with the usb gadget power negotation
Message-ID<r7wZI-4bg-13@gated-at.bofh.it>

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:04:26AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:

> 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.

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web