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

[Dario Binacchi]

Hello Tom,

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:01 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 02:26:10PM +0100, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> While there was some point in history where I'm sure we got confused by
> "0x" input I don't think that's true anymore (and everything should be
> using some strto function that works as expected, not a custom parser).
> So the docs should be updated there.
>
> > > 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.
>
> That we assume input is hex is just what it is these days. Output really
> ought to be prefixed with 0x because that's just common convention (and
> whatever we assumed people would Just Know 25+ years ago may not be true
> today). Since updating this output really shouldn't change our ABI, it's
> conceptually fine with me but we don't use "%#lx" a lot and so I don't
> know if tiny-printf handles it and so that might not be the right call
> for SPL code and so lets not change this patch.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>
> --
> Tom

Can this patch be merged?
I've seen both Review tags and conflicting opinions, and I haven't understood
whether it can be accepted or not.

Thanks and regards,
Dario

-- 

Dario Binacchi

Senior Embedded Linux Developer

dario.binacchi at amarulasolutions.com

__________________________________


Amarula Solutions SRL

Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT

T. +39 042 243 5310
info at amarulasolutions.com

www.amarulasolutions.com