[PATCH 2/2] cmd: booti: adjust the print format

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 09:03, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 09:00:30AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Dario,
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 08:25, Dario Binacchi
> > <dario.binacchi at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dario,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > >  cmd/booti.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
> > > > > index 62b19e834366..ea811244a0a9 100644
> > > > > --- a/cmd/booti.c
> > > > > +++ b/cmd/booti.c
> > > > > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int booti_start(struct bootm_info *bmi)
> > > > >
> > > > >         /* Handle BOOTM_STATE_LOADOS */
> > > > >         if (relocated_addr != ld) {
> > > > > -               printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=%lx\n", ld,
> > > > > +               printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=0x%lx\n", ld,
> > > > >                        relocated_addr, relocated_addr + image_size);
> > > > >                 memmove((void *)relocated_addr, (void *)ld, image_size);
> > > > >         }
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.43.0
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I really don't like this...numbers are hex in U-Boot and this just
> > > > adds confusion.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I'm quite confused.
> > > Doesn't printing 3 numbers in hexadecimal format with different
> > > formatting (two with `0x` and
> > >  one without) create more confusion?
> > > At least we should ensure formatting consistency.
> > > Also, it seems to me that this patch:
> > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240825122617.3708982-1-dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com/
> > > has been considered correct.
> > >
> > > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > IMO we should avoid adding 0x to things...particularly for addresses.
> > Better to remove it when it has crept in.
>
> That we don't prefix with "0x" like humans generally expect is why
> people have been confused why partition 10 is in fact not 10-in-decimal
> but 0x10.

Yes, that's the one example which was in my head when reviewing this patch.

Regards,
Simon