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);#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.
OTOH the number used in the usb tree command is taken from struct usb_device, and is used for lookups.
The name is only relevant to non-discoverable devices at the moment.
dm tree shows: ... ehci_generic | |-- usb@ee080100 ... usb_hub | | `-- usb_hub ... usb_mass_storage | | `-- usb_mass_storage ... usb_storage_blk | | `-- usb_mass_storage.lun0