Hi,
On 09-11-15 07:48, Simon Glass wrote:
Each scan of the USB bus may return different results. Existing driver-model
devices are reused when found, but if a device no longer exists it will stay
around, de-activated, but bound.
Detect these devices and remove them after the scan completes.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
I wonder how this is better then my original:
"dm: usb: Use device_unbind_children to clean up usb devs on stop"
Patch, the end result of both patches is the same and both are
a NOP when DM_DEVICE_REMOVE is not set. Where as my code seems
to be a much more KISS approach to the problem (my approach is
just 3 lines vs 23 lines for yours).
I know we will need usb_find_child in the DM_DEVICE_REMOVE not
set case, but why not only revert the:
"dm: usb: Rename usb_find_child to usb_find_emul_child"
commit, keep the other 2 you revert and drop this patch ?
This drops 3 patches from your patch-set and the end result is
more clean IMHO.
Changes in v2: None
drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c b/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c
index 4aa92f8..50538e0 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/host/usb-uclass.c
@@ -202,6 +202,20 @@ static void usb_scan_bus(struct udevice *bus, bool recurse)
printf("%d USB Device(s) found\n", priv->next_addr);
}
+static void remove_inactive_children(struct uclass *uc, struct udevice *bus)
+{
+ uclass_foreach_dev(bus, uc) {
+ struct udevice *dev, *next;
+
+ if (!device_active(bus))
+ continue;
+ device_foreach_child_safe(dev, next, bus) {
+ if (!device_active(dev))
+ device_unbind(dev);
+ }
+ }
+}
+
int usb_init(void)
{
int controllers_initialized = 0;
@@ -270,6 +284,15 @@ int usb_init(void)
}
debug("scan end\n");
+
+ /* Remove any devices that were not found on this scan */
+ remove_inactive_children(uc, bus);
+
+ ret = uclass_get(UCLASS_USB_HUB, &uc);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ remove_inactive_children(uc, bus);
+
Why do you need to call remove_inactive_children twice here? This seems
worthy of a comment explaining why this is necessary.
/* if we were not able to find at least one working bus, bail out */
if (!count)
printf("No controllers found\n");
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
