[PATCH 1/2] bootm: adjust the print format

[Caleb Connolly]

On 25/08/2024 19:36, E Shattow wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 5:26 AM Dario Binacchi
> <dario.binacchi at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>> All three addresses printed are in hexadecimal format, but only the
>> first two have the "0x" prefix. The patch aligns the format of the
>> "end" address with the other two by adding the "0x" prefix.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi at amarulasolutions.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   boot/bootm.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/boot/bootm.c b/boot/bootm.c
>> index 480f8e6a0e6e..951e549f19ff 100644
>> --- a/boot/bootm.c
>> +++ b/boot/bootm.c
>> @@ -703,7 +703,7 @@ static int bootm_load_os(struct bootm_headers *images, int boot_progress)
>>
>>                  /* Handle BOOTM_STATE_LOADOS */
>>                  if (relocated_addr != load) {
>> -                       printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=%lx\n",
>> +                       printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=0x%lx\n",
>>                                 load, relocated_addr,
>>                                 relocated_addr + image_size);
>>                          memmove((void *)relocated_addr, load_buf, image_size);
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
> 
>  From U-Boot documentation, alpha-numeric input is assumed to be
> hexadecimal except when it is not, and generally does not accept "0x"
> prefix on input. So the correct action would be to make this
> consistent over the whole U-Boot code base, or remove the "0x"
> prefixes (not add more of them) ?

Most(?) U-Boot commands accept the 0x prefix. I don't think stripping it 
is sensible, I myself have gotten confused many times over hex values 
that lack the leading 0x in U-Boot output.

Maybe unavailable in SPL (not sure) but I prefer the "%#lx" format which 
prepends the 0x automatically.
> 
> -E

-- 
// Caleb (they/them)