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

[Marek Vasut]

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.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 ?
> 
> 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 ?

>>> 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 ? :)

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut