[PATCH 6/7] ddr: altera: arria10: Change %i to %u for printf

[Marek Vasut]

On 4/16/20 8:02 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
[...]

>>>>> I will not grow 200+ boards when there's
>>>>> an easy way not to.
>>>>
>>>> By ~6 bytes, which happens with almost every DM patch.
>>>> I am not buying the size argument.
>>>
>>> Nope, not true.  Boards with tiny printf rarely grow their SPL size from
>>> general changes (SoC trees only get scrutiny over growth in platforms
>>> outside their area) because I get this annoying about why they grow in
>>> size.
>>
>> OK, so look at socfpga_cyclone5_defconfig for example, which grew by 32
>> bytes between 2020.04 and u-boot/master thanks to:
>>
>> commit 0486497e2b5f4d36fa968a1a60fea358cbf70b65
>>     lib: Improve _parse_integer_fixup_radix base 16 detection
>>
>> It uses tiny-printf, it grew from general change, and it came from SoC tree:
>> https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-microblaze/-/commits/xilinx-for-v2020.07
>>
>> It didn't take too long to find a counter-example ...
> 
> Yup, it grew for a bugfix.  The full growth is:
>                spl-u-boot-spl: add: 0/0, grow: 3/0 bytes: 56/0 (56)
>                  function                                   old     new   delta
>                  _parse_integer_fixup_radix                  92     120     +28
>                  ns16550_serial_ofdata_to_platdata          104     128     +24
>                  ns16550_serial_probe                        76      80      +4
> 
> For other bugfixes too.  Any of those bugfixes that can be done with
> zero size growth would be appreciated. 

So, how is this bugfix applicable, while a bugfix which fixes tiny
printf to behave sane is not ? I don't really see a distinction here, sorry.

And you should have rejected the above and asked for a more optimized
version, based on 'I get this annoying about why they grow in size.'