On 3/18/19 1:02 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: > On 16/Mar/2019 02:41, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 3/15/19 8:50 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: >>> On 15/Mar/2019 18:34, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 3/14/19 5:19 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: >>>>> On 14/Mar/2019 16:09, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 3/14/19 1:57 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/Mar/2019 12:55, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/14/19 12:44 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/Feb/2019 09:23, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luc...@silicon-gears.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>> index 611ea97a72..0575f5393b 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ int usb_init(void) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> uclass_foreach_dev(bus, uc) { >>>>>>>>>> /* init low_level USB */ >>>>>>>>>> - printf("USB%d: ", count); >>>>>>>>>> + printf("USB%d(%s): ", count, bus->name); >>>>>>>>>> count++; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 2.19.1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ping. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is this patch doing ? The commit description doesn't explain >>>>>>>> anything about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It prints the host device name. I'm not sure the count is at all useful >>>>>>> given there's a name... >>>>>> >>>>>> If you could share the log before and after to better illustrate the >>>>>> difference, that'd be nice. >>>>> >>>>> unpatched: >>>>> >>>>> => usb reset >>>>> resetting USB... >>>>> USB0: USB EHCI 1.10 >>>>> scanning bus 0 for devices... 2 USB Device(s) found >>>>> scanning usb for storage devices... 1 Storage Device(s) found >>>>> >>>>> patched: >>>>> >>>>> => usb reset >>>>> resetting USB... >>>>> USB0(usb@ee080100): USB EHCI 1.10 >>>>> scanning bus 0 for devices... 2 USB Device(s) found >>>>> scanning usb for storage devices... 1 Storage Device(s) found >>>>> >>>>>> However, shouldn't the same approach be applied to 'usb tree' subcommand >>>>>> and possibly others ? >>>>> >>>>> The number shown during usb scanning is not used nor saved anywhere >>>>> else, so seems pretty useless and a special case. >>>> >>>> What about usb part ? That one uses the number somehow I think ? >>> >>> Not this number. >> >> Lovely. >> >> Anyway, this looks good, can you repost this patch with proper commit >> message, ideally with the example output above so I can pick it for next ? > > Ok. > >>>>> OTOH the number used in the usb tree command is taken from struct >>>>> usb_device, and is used for lookups. >>>> >>>> Maybe it's time to clean that numbering mess up a bit , and make it >>>> consistent ? >>> >>> Maybe implement it like a vfs? It would force some consistency into the >>> drivers and commands. >> >> Do you want to take that one up ? :) > > I would consider implementing it. Is there any preferences?
Prepare an RFC patchset and we'll see how that looks :) -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot