From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 19:51:56 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] usb: new board-specific USB init interface
In-Reply-To: <5228C167.3020804@samsung.com>
References: <1375786242-11734-1-git-send-email-m.zalega@samsung.com>
	<201309051750.20770.marex@denx.de> <5228C167.3020804@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <201309051951.57034.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Mateusz Zalega,

> On 09/05/13 17:50, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> v3 changes:
> >> - added 'index' argument to perform selective port initialization
> > 
> > OK, a few general ideas again:
> > 
> > Why not wrap board_usb_init() and board_usb_init_fail() into single call.
> > You now pass some flags to board_usb_init() already, so just add another
> > for the fail case. How does it sound to you?
> 
> Like overengineering. It would lead to "board_usb_init(USB_INIT_ALL,
> USB_INIT_DEVICE, USB_CLEANUP)" calls, which are not very readable.

This is not what I mean, see this:

int board_usb_init(int index, enum board_usb_init_type init)

Add a new "init" type (or maybe change the init field to be flags) that will say 
"OK, do a fail init" ?

> > Moreover, the 'int index' should likely be unsigned int and the special
> > value to init all controllers at once should probably then be 0xffffffff
> 
> Despite our greatest ambitions, I don't think we're likely to use more
> than 2^31-1 USB controllers at a time. Besides, negative values look
> better both in code and debugger session.

Thinking of it further, instead of using negative value here, like I mentioned 
above, why not make the "board_usb_init_type" into a field of flags , then add 
flag to init all controllers at once ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut