Update USBHost_t36.h - Githubissues

@PaulStoffregen @mjs513 @wwatson4506 -

Warning all: I don't think the update is correct yet...

In particular I think it is using the old style Date/Time functions not the updated versions...

That is the current code (Note I only changed the #if ...

#if TEENSYDUINO >= 156  
    // These will all return false as only some FS support it.
    virtual bool getAccessDateTime(uint16_t* pdate, uint16_t* ptime) {
        return mscfatfile.getAccessDateTime(pdate, ptime);
    }
    virtual bool getCreateDateTime(uint16_t* pdate, uint16_t* ptime) {
        return mscfatfile.getCreateDateTime(pdate, ptime);
    }
    virtual bool getModifyDateTime(uint16_t* pdate, uint16_t* ptime) {
        return mscfatfile.getModifyDateTime(pdate, ptime);
    }
    virtual bool timestamp(uint8_t flags, uint16_t year, uint8_t month, uint8_t day,
               uint8_t hour, uint8_t minute, uint8_t second) {
        return mscfatfile.timestamp(flags, year, month, day, hour, minute, second);
        return false;
    }
#endif

Now if you look at the version in SD.h we have:

    virtual bool getCreateTime(DateTimeFields &tm) {
        uint16_t fat_date, fat_time;
        if (!sdfatfile.getCreateDateTime(&fat_date, &fat_time)) return false;
        if ((fat_date == 0) && (fat_time == 0)) return false;
        tm.sec = FS_SECOND(fat_time);
        tm.min = FS_MINUTE(fat_time);
        tm.hour = FS_HOUR(fat_time);
        tm.mday = FS_DAY(fat_date);
        tm.mon = FS_MONTH(fat_date) - 1;
        tm.year = FS_YEAR(fat_date) - 1900;
        return true;
    }
    virtual bool getModifyTime(DateTimeFields &tm) {
        uint16_t fat_date, fat_time;
        if (!sdfatfile.getModifyDateTime(&fat_date, &fat_time)) return false;
        if ((fat_date == 0) && (fat_time == 0)) return false;
        tm.sec = FS_SECOND(fat_time);
        tm.min = FS_MINUTE(fat_time);
        tm.hour = FS_HOUR(fat_time);
        tm.mday = FS_DAY(fat_date);
        tm.mon = FS_MONTH(fat_date) - 1;
        tm.year = FS_YEAR(fat_date) - 1900;
        return true;
    }
    virtual bool setCreateTime(const DateTimeFields &tm) {
        if (tm.year < 80 || tm.year > 207) return false;
        return sdfatfile.timestamp(T_CREATE, tm.year + 1900, tm.mon + 1,
            tm.mday, tm.hour, tm.min, tm.sec);
    }
    virtual bool setModifyTime(const DateTimeFields &tm) {
        if (tm.year < 80 || tm.year > 207) return false;
        return sdfatfile.timestamp(T_WRITE, tm.year + 1900, tm.mon + 1,
            tm.mday, tm.hour, tm.min, tm.sec);
    }

Which was updated to not have our interface use for SDFat Timestamp member as part of our interface.

I can update again which is fine.

But I keep wondering do we really need to duplicate this code?

That is if in SD.h where we have:

class SDFile : public FileImpl
{
private:
    // Classes derived from File are never meant to be constructed
    // anywhere other than open() in the parent FS class and
    // openNextFile() while traversing a directory.
    // Only the abstract File class which references these derived
    // classes is meant to have a public constructor!
    SDFile(const SDFAT_FILE &file) : sdfatfile(file), filename(nullptr) { }
    friend class SDClass;
public:
...

If the constructor was public is there any reason why it would not work for both places... 
Maybe could have different name, like FatFileWrapper  or the like.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I pushed up changes with copies of the function from SD.h (only diffferences) is the name of the member variable that holds a copy of the FsFile object

PaulStoffregen / USBHost_t36

Update USBHost_t36.h #93

iffdef FS_FILE_SUPPORT_DATES

if TEENSYDUINO >= 156