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