[PATCH 1/2] bootm: adjust the print format
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@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);
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@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); }
Hi Dario,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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.
Regards, Simon
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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-da... has been considered correct.
Thanks and regards, Dario
Regards, Simon
Hi Dario,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 08:25, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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-da... 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.
Regards, SImon
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@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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-da... 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.
Hi Tom,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 09:03, Tom Rini trini@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@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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-da... 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
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 5:26 AM Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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) ?
-E
On 25/08/2024 19:36, E Shattow wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 5:26 AM Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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
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@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@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@konsulko.com
Hello Tom,
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:01 PM Tom Rini trini@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@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@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@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
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 12:36, E Shattow lucent@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 5:26 AM Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@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) ?
Yes, we should avoid these prefixes as they can confuse people into thinking that hex is not the default.
In other cases where this is needed, for 0x you can use %#x
Regards, Simon
Hi Dario,
Thank you for the patch.
On dim., août 25, 2024 at 14:26, Dario Binacchi dario.binacchi@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@amarulasolutions.com
Reviewed-by: Mattijs Korpershoek mkorpershoek@baylibre.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
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:26:07 +0200, Dario Binacchi 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.
Applied to u-boot/next, thanks!
participants (6)
-
Caleb Connolly -
Dario Binacchi -
E Shattow -
Mattijs Korpershoek -
Simon Glass -
Tom Rini