[U-Boot] [PATCH] usb: host: Print device name when scanning

[Ismael Luceno Cortes <ismael.luceno@silicon-gears.com>]

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 at 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.

> > 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.