[U-Boot] [PATCH] usb: host: Print device name when scanning

[Marek Vasut]

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.luceno at 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 at 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 ?

> 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 ?

> The name is only relevant to non-discoverable devices at the moment.
> 
> dm tree shows:
> ... ehci_generic          |   |-- usb at ee080100
> ... usb_hub               |   |   `-- usb_hub
> ... usb_mass_storage      |   |       `-- usb_mass_storage
> ... usb_storage_blk       |   |           `-- usb_mass_storage.lun0
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut