Hi Suneel,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Suneel Garapati <suneelgli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Suneel,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Suneel Garapati <suneelgli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> add blk child devices to ignore list while displaying
>>> usb tree graph, otherwise usb tree and info commands
>>> may cause crash treating blk as usb device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suneel Garapati <suneelgli...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes v3:
>>> - remove 'check on parent uclass' in description
>>
>> thanks for making the changes.
>>
>>> Changes v2:
>>> - remove check on parent uclass
>>> Changes v1:
>>> - add separate check on blk uclass
>>> - modify description
>>> - add separate check on parent uclass as usb
>>>
>>> cmd/usb.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/cmd/usb.c b/cmd/usb.c
>>> index d95bcf5..3889994 100644
>>> --- a/cmd/usb.c
>>> +++ b/cmd/usb.c
>>> @@ -414,8 +414,12 @@ static void usb_show_tree_graph(struct usb_device
>>> *dev, char *pre)
>>>
>>> udev = dev_get_parent_priv(child);
>>>
>>> - /* Ignore emulators, we only want real devices */
>>> - if (device_get_uclass_id(child) != UCLASS_USB_EMUL) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Ignore emulators and block child devices, we only want
>>> + * real devices
>>> + */
>>> + if ((device_get_uclass_id(child) != UCLASS_USB_EMUL) &&
>>> + (device_get_uclass_id(child) != UCLASS_BLK)) {
>>> usb_show_tree_graph(udev, pre);
>>> pre[index] = 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -605,7 +609,8 @@ static void usb_show_info(struct usb_device *udev)
>>> for (device_find_first_child(udev->dev, &child);
>>> child;
>>> device_find_next_child(&child)) {
>>> - if (device_active(child)) {
>>> + if (device_active(child) &&
>>> + (device_get_uclass_id(child) != UCLASS_BLK)) {
>>> udev = dev_get_parent_priv(child);
>>> usb_show_info(udev);
>>> }
>>> --
>>
>> My testing of 'usb info' looks OK, however 'usb tree' still has some
>> issues below:
>>
>> => usb tree
>> USB device tree:
>> 1 Hub (5 Gb/s, 0mA)
>> | U-Boot XHCI Host Controller
>> |
>> +-2 Hub (5 Gb/s, 0mA)
>> | | GenesysLogic USB3.0 Hub
>> | |
>> | +-5 Vendor specific (5 Gb/s, 36mA)
>> | Realtek USB 10/100/1000 LAN 00E04C680977
>> |
> Leaving block devices, why the extra print here for lan port?
There is nothing wrong here. Every device has a separation line.
>
>> +-3 Hub (480 Mb/s, 100mA)
>> | | GenesysLogic USB2.0 Hub
>> | |
> And here?
>
Again, nothing wrong here.
>> | +-6 Mass Storage (480 Mb/s, 98mA)
>> | | | USBest Technology USB Mass Storage Device 101111c452b7c0
>> | | |
>>
>> As you see, we just don't print out the BLK device, but we still print
>> out the | here.
> I believe if the extra print for other devices is correct, then this
> tree is fine.
It's not correct. The tree graphic does not look correct now.
> Also, I believe this is not related to the fix this patch aims at.
> Let me know if otherwise.
No, you should not fix one thing but introduce another thing.
>
> Regards,
> Suneel
>>
>> | +-7 Human Interface (1.5 Mb/s, 70mA)
>> | Dell Dell USB Keyboard
>> |
>> +-4 Mass Storage (480 Mb/s, 300mA)
>> | JetFlash Mass Storage Device 16Q6ZPH20GF3E8UQ
>> |
>>
>> And here.
Regards,
Bin
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
