Re: [PATCH] usb: core: deattach child device from typec connector on port unbind
Marco Tormento <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-usb,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACF_Uwo-hj8qpWoK8EjYVKRui2EmwHmWZ-ntS2Yd8MrTZ5Udgw@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Heikki, On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 at 13:13, Heikki Krogerus <[email protected]> wrote: > > We should not need to reverse anything. We can't avoid calling > typec_attach() separately from connector_bind() because we can't > prevent USB devices from being enumerated before the typec drivers are > loaded for example during bootup. But that does not mean we need to > call typec_deattach() in connector_unbind(). > > After the USB device is "attached" to the typec connector, the > connector device should be pinned down for as long as the USB device > exists, but that is not happening. So what both you guys are doing, is > working around a problem with the reference count. > > I can see that most of your commit message is written by some LLM, and > the parts that you've added don't usually belong to the commit > message. That makes me a bit concerned about how much you actually > understand what the code that you are modifying does. > > Use of LLMs is fine, but you still have understand the code that you > modify. First of all, thank you for the explanation. The commit message definitely sounded over confident, my understanding of the issue is summed up here in my first patch submission a year ago: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ As I said back then, my experience on kernel code was nearly zero, and I was well aware there might be better ways to fix the issue: that's also true today. What I did a few days ago was to ask AI to analyse my first patch and see if it could find a better mitigation. It came up with this patch, I read the explanation and it made sense for my level of understanding of the matter (which is arguably low, unfortunately). I checked the code and tested for a while with success, so I submitted a new patch and here we are. Do you have any suspects yet on where the underlying issue might be? Regards, Marco