[U-Boot] [PATCH] improved strmhz()
This patch prevents the displaying of results like this: hz = 1999170000 buf = "200.-83"
Signed-off-by: Ilko Iliev iliev@ronetix.at
index 342cf2b..981a75a 100644 --- a/lib_generic/strmhz.c +++ b/lib_generic/strmhz.c @@ -28,10 +28,15 @@ char *strmhz (char *buf, long hz) long m;
n = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000000L); - l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n);
hz -= n * 1000000L; m = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000L); + if ( m < 0 ) { + n--; + m += 1000L; + } + + l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n); if (m != 0) sprintf (buf + l, ".%03ld", m); return (buf);
Dear Ilko Iliev,
In message 48FDCEB6.9040206@ronetix.at you wrote:
This patch prevents the displaying of results like this: hz = 1999170000 buf = "200.-83"
I think you got one '0' too many in your example - the example would just print "1999.170" which is correct.
--- a/lib_generic/strmhz.c +++ b/lib_generic/strmhz.c @@ -28,10 +28,15 @@ char *strmhz (char *buf, long hz) long m;
n = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000000L);
l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n); hz -= n * 1000000L; m = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000L);
if ( m < 0 ) {n--;m += 1000L;}l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n); if (m != 0) sprintf (buf + l, ".%03ld", m); return (buf);
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;
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Ilko Iliev,
In message 48FDCEB6.9040206@ronetix.at you wrote:
This patch prevents the displaying of results like this: hz = 1999170000 buf = "200.-83"
I think you got one '0' too many in your example - the example would just print "1999.170" which is correct.
--- a/lib_generic/strmhz.c +++ b/lib_generic/strmhz.c @@ -28,10 +28,15 @@ char *strmhz (char *buf, long hz) long m;
n = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000000L);
l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n); hz -= n * 1000000L; m = DIV_ROUND(hz, 1000L);
if ( m < 0 ) {n--;m += 1000L;}l = sprintf (buf, "%ld", n); if (m != 0) sprintf (buf + l, ".%03ld", m); return (buf);That looks overly complex to me. Can you please check if this patch fixes the problem for your test cases, too:
Yes, it works.
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
Kumar Gala wrote:
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)
(unsigned) 4294967289 = (signed) -7 (if I did my math right). This is indicating Wolfgang's patch still does negative remainders, but masks that by printing them as unsigned numbers.
Best regards, gvb
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
I haven't been following this thread, but can we control the number of significant digits.
customizable # of digits is always going to differ according to taste. just lock everyone to like .3 and be done. no point in wasting overhead on this. -mike
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 0E4961A3-232C-4307-91E3-B2F7CB216BFA@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
--- 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
Can you please provide the input to the strmhz() function (the "hz" parameter) that is causing such output?
I am aware that we will have a problem when "hz" exceeds the 2.147 GHz limit (as that's the limit for a "long" data type), but that's another problem, and requires many changes.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi Wolfgang,
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
--- 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;
<snip>
Can you please provide the input to the strmhz() function (the "hz" parameter) that is causing such output?
This patch fixes a problem I have seen on the 1.066GHz Canyonlands. Without it I see this:
CPU: AMCC PowerPC 460EX Rev. A at 1067.4294966964 MHz
with it it's this:
CPU: AMCC PowerPC 460EX Rev. A at 1066.667 MHz
Wolfgang, can you check in the new patch version?
Thanks.
Best regards, Stefan
===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de =====================================================================
participants (6)
-
Ilko Iliev -
Jerry Van Baren -
Kumar Gala -
Mike Frysinger -
Stefan Roese -
Wolfgang Denk