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. > > 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. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot