Remy Bohmer wrote:
Hi Tom,
Sorry for not responding to this series very fast, because I wanted to look into it carefully. Below my comments on this patch
2009/9/28 Tom Rix Tom.Rix@windriver.com:
The header files usb.h and usbdescriptors.h have the same or similarly named structure definitions for
usb_device_descriptor usb_string_descriptor usb_endpoint_descriptor usb_config_descriptor vs usb_configuration_descriptor usb_interface_descriptor
There should only be one definition of these structures.
True, I agree with that.
Some of these structures are element-wise duplicates, one has unused elements that can be reduced to a duplicate, and some of the the structures have additional elements.
These are the element-wise duplicates in usb.h
usb_device_descriptor usb_string_descriptor
For these, the usb.h definition will be removed.
This definition in usb.h has extra unused elements
Can these be merged to one global structure?
No. The size of the structure is kept in 'bLength' field. Have bLength = sizeof(struct bla_descriptor) is the right way to go.
usb_endpoint_descriptor
unsigned char bRefresh unsigned char bSynchAddress;The definition of usb_endpoint_descriptor in usb.h will be removed.
These definitions in usb.h have extra elements at the end of the usb 2.0 specified descriptor:
usb_config_descriptor usb_interface_descriptor
These structures will have their name shorted by removing the '_descriptor' suffix.
So
usb_config_descriptor -> usb_config usb_interface_descriptor -> usb_interface
The common descriptor elements are now defined by the macros
USB_CONFIG_DESCRIPTOR_DEFINITION USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR_DEFINITION
Personally I do not like the macros for these kind of definitions, I would prefer a solution by nesting the structures. What do you think?
I have an early version of this patch that does use nested structures. After looking at the added '.desc.' that caused a good number of changes in the c files, I went with the macro approach. It seemed like the lesser of the evils as the changes seemed smaller and were limited to the h files. What I really wanted to do was to use nameless structures but had a problem getting them to work with gcc.
I do not mind reverting to the '.desc.' solution. I will resend the patches when I have had a chance to test them.
Thanks Tom
Kind regards,
Remy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot