[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] test/py: move find_ram_base() into u_boot_utils

[Stephen Warren]

On 01/25/2016 06:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 18:09, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 01/25/2016 06:03 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On 25 January 2016 at 09:50, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/22/2016 03:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Stephen,
>>>>>
>>>>> In message <1453417531-23669-1-git-send-email-swarren at wwwdotorg.org> you
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> find_ram_base() is a shared utility function, not a core part of the
>>>>>> U-Boot console interaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On which boards did you test this feature?  Eventually ARM only?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's been tested on a few ARM, sandbox, and at least one microblaze.
>>>>
>>>>>> +    with u_boot_console.log.section('find_ram_base'):
>>>>>> +        response = u_boot_console.run_command('bdinfo')
>>>>>> +        for l in response.split('\n'):
>>>>>> +            if '-> start' in l:
>>>>>> +                ram_base = int(l.split('=')[1].strip(), 16)
>>>>>> +                break
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Searching for "-> start" is probably not exactly portable.  For
>>>>> example, on a PowerPC system the output of "bdi" might look like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> => bdi
>>>>> memstart    = 0x00000000
>>>>> memsize     = 0x04000000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [example is from a TQM5200S, U-Boot 2016.01-00223-gb57843e]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good point. I think the best fix here is to modify all implementations of
>>>> "bdinfo" to print the same information and in the same format as much as
>>>> possible. Do you agree?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes - and the best way to do this is to use the same code for all
>>> boards if possible.
>>>
>>> BTW I can't apply this patch as the u_boot_utils.py file is missing.
>>> Can you please rebase and resend?
>>
>>
>> Do you have "test/py: add various utility code" already applied? That
>> creates u_boot_utils.py. As mentioned in the original patch email, this
>> series depends on the series that contains that patch. You had replied
>> earlier that you had applied that series in u-boot-dm.
>
> Ah yes, user error, sorry.
>
> BTW re your question about """ for comments, please see PEP8 etc.:
>
> http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#block-comments
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/

OK, I see the recommendation to use """ for docstrings. Can we also use 
" rather than ' for regular string too please, to avoid mixing different 
quote characters?