Dear Przemyslaw Marczak,
Hello Marek, Thank you for fast reply.
On 10/17/2013 07:39 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Przemyslaw Marczak,
UMS init was implemented in trats board file but mostly it comprises common code. Due to that it has been moved to common/ums.c to avoid code duplication in the future.
Changes:
- move ums initialization code from trats to common/ums.c
- remove unused CONFIG_USB_GADGET_MASS_STORAGE from trats.h
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Minkyu Kang mk7.kang@samsung.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com
board/samsung/common/Makefile | 1 + board/samsung/common/ums.c | 66
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ board/samsung/trats/trats.c |
62 -------------------------------------- include/configs/trats.h |
2 --4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) create mode 100644 board/samsung/common/ums.c
diff --git a/board/samsung/common/Makefile b/board/samsung/common/Makefile index ad7564c..d122169 100644 --- a/board/samsung/common/Makefile +++ b/board/samsung/common/Makefile @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ LIB = $(obj)libsamsung.o
COBJS-$(CONFIG_SOFT_I2C_MULTI_BUS) += multi_i2c.o COBJS-$(CONFIG_THOR_FUNCTION) += thor.o
+COBJS-$(CONFIG_CMD_USB_MASS_STORAGE) += ums.o
SRCS := $(COBJS-y:.o=.c) OBJS := $(addprefix $(obj),$(COBJS-y))
diff --git a/board/samsung/common/ums.c b/board/samsung/common/ums.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..506f4b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/board/samsung/common/ums.c @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +/*
- Copyright (C) 2013 Samsung Electronics
- Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com
- SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
- */
+#include <common.h> +#include <usb_mass_storage.h> +#include <part.h>
+static int ums_read_sector(struct ums_device *ums_dev,
ulong start, lbaint_t blkcnt, void *buf)+{
- if (ums_dev->mmc->block_dev.block_read(ums_dev->dev_num,
start + ums_dev->offset, blkcnt,buf) != blkcnt)This looks like hell.
typeT block_dev = ums_dev->mmc; int ret;
ret = block_dev->block_read(....);
return ret;
Ok, you're right - I will fix it in next patch set.
Is it necessary to return -1? Why ?
It's only because of ums gadged driver design but it is easy to simplify.
A proper errno.h patch would be good here.
Please fix the whole thing in-place first, then rebase this migration patch on top of the fix.
OK, migration patch will be at the top.
And one more. Do you want me to make it applicable to usb-next or usb-master tree?
-next please.