Drop support for obsolete Android USB Type-C dual-role class support |
||||||
Issue descriptionAndroid Type-C Dual-role class support is not enabled in Chrome OS. The code is obsolete and has been replaced upstream with a different infrastructure. Drop it instead of carrying it around.
,
May 19 2017
The following revision refers to this bug: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/d2cd583a8972167e746545bb65c40d4391a7fd9a commit d2cd583a8972167e746545bb65c40d4391a7fd9a Author: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> Date: Fri May 19 23:19:36 2017 CHROMIUM: Revert "usb: phy: Dual role sysfs class definition" This reverts commit ce31762e99a3a75edb10d053dd71ec02bbe7aaa5. Revert "usb: phy: fix dual role sysfs build if kernel modules are supported" This reverts commit b9efd37bc8c01458a81d5b142e4b2259465a3c51. Code is unused and obsolete. BUG= chromium:724289 TEST=Build image and test on Kevin Change-Id: Ie35348cdc057028f9829a1bd572d697dbd000e1b Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/508879 Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> [delete] https://crrev.com/dcb46f2cfd11578e700f20313739eeaca81532fa/include/linux/usb/class-dual-role.h [modify] https://crrev.com/d2cd583a8972167e746545bb65c40d4391a7fd9a/drivers/usb/phy/Kconfig [delete] https://crrev.com/dcb46f2cfd11578e700f20313739eeaca81532fa/drivers/usb/phy/class-dual-role.c [delete] https://crrev.com/dcb46f2cfd11578e700f20313739eeaca81532fa/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-dual-role-usb [modify] https://crrev.com/d2cd583a8972167e746545bb65c40d4391a7fd9a/drivers/usb/phy/Makefile
,
May 20 2017
,
May 22 2017
,
Jul 6 2017
Issue 625263 has been merged into this issue.
,
Jul 10 2017
,
Jul 10 2017
> Android Type-C Dual-role class support is not enabled in Chrome OS. The code is obsolete and has been replaced upstream with a different infrastructure. Drop it instead of carrying it around. Do we have that upstream infrastructure in our 4.4 tree? It would be nice to know what I can do re b/36564896. Or if it's totally a lost cause due to this.
,
Jul 10 2017
#7: Not sure I understand; the Android infrastructure was not enabled in the first place. Effectively I only removed disabled code. What part of it are you looking for ? Did you plan to enable it ? If so, did you have a plan for later kernels ? Answering your question: The new infrastructure is not currently in 4.4, though I have it in a local tree. If needed I could make it available. Note that the new infrastructure, just like the Android infrastructure, is primarily a user space ABI. Having it available doesn't help much without matching user space component.
,
Jul 12 2017
> Do we have that upstream infrastructure in our 4.4 tree? It would be nice to know what I can do re b/36564896. Or if it's totally a lost cause due to this. > Not sure I understand; the Android infrastructure was not enabled in the first place. Yep, no problem then. I never intended to use the Android infrastructure. I didn't realize it was Android only (and that we didn't care about it). |
||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||||
Comment 1 by bugdroid1@chromium.org
, May 19 2017