That looks overly complex to me. Can you please check if this patch fixes the problem for your test cases, too:
From 963e7db81379225b78bfac0d7457300c86d6b4d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:53:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix strmhz(): avoid printing negative fractions
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
lib_generic/strmhz.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib_generic/strmhz.c b/lib_generic/strmhz.c index 342cf2b..d6da1d1 100644 --- a/lib_generic/strmhz.c +++ b/lib_generic/strmhz.c @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ char *strmhz (char *buf, long hz) long l, n; long m;
- n = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000000L);
n = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000) / 1000L; l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n);
hz -= n * 1000000L;
-- 1.5.5.1
I haven't been following this thread, but can we control the number of significant digits. I'm starting to see output like:
Clock Configuration: CPU:1500.4294967282 MHz, CCB:600.4294967291 MHz, DDR:400.4294967293 MHz (800.4294967289 MT/s data rate) (Asynchronous), LBC:37.500 MHz
(it use to look like)
Clock Configuration: CPU:1500 MHz, CCB: 600 MHz, DDR: 401 MHz (801 MT/s data rate) (Asynchronous), LBC: 37 MHz
- k