Hi Hans, On 30 June 2015 at 06:29, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 29-06-15 05:44, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Hans. >> >> On 17 June 2015 at 13:33, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Drop the unneeded portnr function argument, the portnr is part of the >>> usb_device struct which is passed via the dev argument. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> common/usb.c | 10 +++++----- >>> drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c | 2 +- >>> include/usb.h | 6 +++--- >>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> >> This was needed in the case where a fake usb_device was passed in. Has >> your previous refactoring changed that? > > > The portnr is still passed but it is padded via the usb_device struct's > portnr member. When doing a CONFIG_DM_USB=y build the only call site of > usb_setup_device() is usb_scan_device() from drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c > which does: > > udev->portnr = port; > debug("Calling usb_setup_device(), portnr=%d\n", udev->portnr); > parent_udev = device_get_uclass_id(parent) == UCLASS_USB_HUB ? > dev_get_parentdata(parent) : NULL; > ret = usb_setup_device(udev, priv->desc_before_addr, parent_udev); > > So portnr is always set in the usb_device strict, and that is what gets > used after this patch.
OK thanks for explaining that. Acked-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot