From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:24:32 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] FW: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fastboot: improve download
	progress bar
In-Reply-To: <541BA289.1080507@atmel.com>
References: <ABFEDD1A8D2AAF42A54E3C074D49DC729DB2AD9B@penmbx01>
	<201409181159.53234.marex@denx.de> <541BA289.1080507@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <201409190624.32446.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

On Friday, September 19, 2014 at 05:27:05 AM, Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Marek,
[...]
> >> Transfer I mean here is a usb request, which trying to transfer
> >> EP_BUFFER_SIZE at one time.
> >> In my test case, sometime it transfer less than EP_BUFFER_SIZE in a usb
> >> request. So, it cause dot won't print the dot, and seems stuck. However,
> >> it will finish transfer after some time.
> > 
> > I see now. This code is really weird.
> > 
> > What would happen if the following condition is met in the code for k>0 ?
> > (download_bytes == download_size) AND (download_bytes = k *
> > BYTES_PER_DOT)
> 
> I am not fully understand what you plan to present here.
> 
> > I think the original code would happily print a dot after printing this
> > output: printf("\ndownloading of %d bytes finished\n", download_bytes);
> > 
> > Do you agree ? If yes, then I believe this code should go into the else
> > branch only.
> 
> Yes, I agree. This may happen, if the (download_bytes % BTYES_PER_DOT)
> equals to 0.
> 
> > Also, you can probably avoid the counting variable if you do something
> > like:
> > 
> > if (download_bytes / CONST != (download_bytes + transfer_size) / CONST) {
> > 
> > 	print(dot);
> > 	if (download_bytes / (74 * CONST) != ((download_bytes + transfer_size) /
> > 
> > (74 * CONST))
> > 
> > 		print(\n);
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > Surely, the code can be simplified . You would also need to be careful
> > about this assignment at the top of the function : download_bytes +=
> > transfer_size;
> > 
> > What do you think ?
> 
> I think this piece of code is better, which won't introduce new variable.
> 
> If no other comments, I will modify the code like this and send the v2
> patch.

Well OK then. Thanks!