On 01/26/2016 12:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 26 January 2016 at 11:13, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
On 01/25/2016 06:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 25 January 2016 at 18:09, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
On 01/25/2016 06:03 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 25 January 2016 at 09:50, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org>
wrote:
On 01/22/2016 03:30 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Stephen,
In message <1453417531-23669-1-git-send-email-swar...@wwwdotorg.org>
you
wrote:
find_ram_base() is a shared utility function, not a core part of the
U-Boot console interaction.
On which boards did you test this feature? Eventually ARM only?
It's been tested on a few ARM, sandbox, and at least one microblaze.
+ with u_boot_console.log.section('find_ram_base'):
+ response = u_boot_console.run_command('bdinfo')
+ for l in response.split('\n'):
+ if '-> start' in l:
+ ram_base = int(l.split('=')[1].strip(), 16)
+ break
Searching for "-> start" is probably not exactly portable. For
example, on a PowerPC system the output of "bdi" might look like this:
=> bdi
memstart = 0x00000000
memsize = 0x04000000
...
[example is from a TQM5200S, U-Boot 2016.01-00223-gb57843e]
Good point. I think the best fix here is to modify all implementations
of
"bdinfo" to print the same information and in the same format as much
as
possible. Do you agree?
Yes - and the best way to do this is to use the same code for all
boards if possible.
BTW I can't apply this patch as the u_boot_utils.py file is missing.
Can you please rebase and resend?
Do you have "test/py: add various utility code" already applied? That
creates u_boot_utils.py. As mentioned in the original patch email, this
series depends on the series that contains that patch. You had replied
earlier that you had applied that series in u-boot-dm.
Ah yes, user error, sorry.
BTW re your question about """ for comments, please see PEP8 etc.:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#block-comments
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/
OK, I see the recommendation to use """ for docstrings. Can we also use "
rather than ' for regular string too please, to avoid mixing different quote
characters?
That's the style used for patman/buildman. I think it's actually good
to have them different. You will sometimes hit the case where you need
a quoted double quote, like print 'This is a "test" of things'.
There are counter-cases where ' needs to be escaped in the current
scheme too, e.g.:
assert('Unknown command \'non_existent_cmd\' - try \'help\'' in response)
... although I haven't quantified which way around would lead to more
escapes.
I'll just convert the docstrings for now. Since you've acked/reviewed
everything I have sent so far, I'll build my patch on top of all those
patches.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
