On 01/20/2017 09:51 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 12 January 2017 at 09:19, Andrew F. Davis <afd at ti.com> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd at ti.com>
>> ---
>> common/spl/spl.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
>> index a76ea3a603..e43718de62 100644
>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
>> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static int boot_from_devices(struct spl_image_info *spl_image,
>> loader = spl_ll_find_loader(spl_boot_list[i]);
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT)
>> if (loader)
>> - printf("Trying to boot from %s", loader->name);
>> + printf("Trying to boot from %s\n", loader->name);
>> else
>> puts("SPL: Unsupported Boot Device!\n");
>> #endif
>> @@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2)
>> gd->malloc_ptr / 1024);
>> #endif
>>
>> - debug("loaded - jumping to U-Boot...");
>> + debug("loaded - jumping to U-Boot...\n");
>
> I prefer this one as it is, since U-Boot prints a few newlines anyway,
> and this way we can have the cursor at the end of the 'jumping' line
> until U-Boot starts.
>
> What's the rationale for changing it. Could you add a commit message?
>
Looks like this already has be taken, but I'll explain myself anyway.
The way I see it, for consistency sake, the only reason a print
statement should not end in a newline is iff they expect something to be
printed on the same line after. This is not the case here, we *do* want
a newline after this statement, we are just expecting it to be handled
later (hopefully). Not sticking to this standard will lead to a lot of
print statements starting with '\n' to be safe. For instance even if we
knew what follows should emit some newlines, this is a debug statement,
it may not printed, so the following line would still have to begin with
a newline "just in-case", we would end up with half our print out lines
with two new lines above them.
Andrew