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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
