[U-Boot] spl: avoid printf when we might be doing Ymodem with CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE

[Marek Vasut]

On 4/22/19 6:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 07:52:20PM +0000, Alex Kiernan wrote:
>> If CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE is enabled and U-Boot is being loaded from UART
>> over Ymodem then we can't emit messages using printf() without causing
>> errors like:
>>
>>   Sending: u-boot-dtb.img
>>   Ymodem sectors/kbytes sent: 3009/376kRetry 0: Got 23 for sector ACK
>>   Retry 0: NAK on sector
>>   Retry 0: Got 68 for sector ACK
>>   Retry 0: NAK on sector
>>   Ymodem sectors/kbytes sent: 3273/409kRetry 0: Got 23 for sector ACK
>>   Retry 0: NAK on sector
>>   Retry 0: Got 68 for sector ACK
>>   Retry 0: NAK on sector
>>
>> Use debug() rather than printf() to avoid sending messages on the serial
>> port.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Kiernan <alex.kiernan at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  common/spl/spl_fit.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl_fit.c b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>> index db436268cbcd..08faf2c1b058 100644
>> --- a/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>> +++ b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
>> @@ -240,12 +240,12 @@ static int spl_load_fit_image(struct spl_load_info *info, ulong sector,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE
>> -	printf("## Checking hash(es) for Image %s ... ",
>> -	       fit_get_name(fit, node, NULL));
>> +	debug("## Checking hash(es) for Image %s ... ",
>> +	      fit_get_name(fit, node, NULL));
>>  	if (!fit_image_verify_with_data(fit, node,
>>  					 src, length))
>>  		return -EPERM;
>> -	puts("OK\n");
>> +	debug("OK\n");
>>  #endif
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_FIT_IMAGE_POST_PROCESS
> 
> I think in this case we want to have that bit of "garbage" happen as the
> protocol handles them correctly and if there is a problem it's visible
> "on the line" to be seen at least and can be dug at.  The other
> alternative here would be to re-work the code to only printf anything on
> the error case and debug that we're checking at all.

Can we do something similar to this ?
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1055047/

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut