On 3/18/19 1:02 PM, Ismael Luceno Cortes wrote:
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.luceno@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?
Prepare an RFC patchset and we'll see how that looks :)