On 09/04/2013 02:34 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Przemyslaw Marczak,
Hello Marek,
Thank you for reply.
On 09/04/2013 12:26 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Przemyslaw Marczak,
This change allows using every mmc device instance with ums, like eMMC
or SD cards. Now MMC device is checked before ums is inited.
Example of use: ums <device_number> for mmc devices.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
CC: Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com>
---
board/samsung/trats/trats.c | 12 +++---------
common/cmd_usb_mass_storage.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
include/usb_mass_storage.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/samsung/trats/trats.c b/board/samsung/trats/trats.c
index 7f61d17..b7f7b05 100644
--- a/board/samsung/trats/trats.c
+++ b/board/samsung/trats/trats.c
@@ -816,17 +816,11 @@ static struct ums_board_info ums_board = {
},
};
-struct ums_board_info *board_ums_init(unsigned int dev_num, unsigned
int offset, - unsigned int part_size)
+struct ums_board_info *board_ums_init(struct mmc *mmc, unsigned int
offset, + unsigned int part_size)
{
- struct mmc *mmc;
-
- mmc = find_mmc_device(dev_num);
- if (!mmc)
- return NULL;
-
ums_board.ums_dev.mmc = mmc;
- ums_board.ums_dev.dev_num = dev_num;
+ ums_board.ums_dev.dev_num = mmc->block_dev.dev;
You already pass "mmc", why pass mmc->block_dev.dev too? Is it not a
little redundant?
You are right, it is little redundant but pointer to this structure is
returned so we expect that structure fields were proper filled, right?
Why not just remove the dev_num field ? The UMS core can retrieve that
information itself.
[...]
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Hello,
I'm making little UMS code refactor now. I will consider your suggestion.
Regards,
--
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marc...@samsung.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
