On 05/14/2016 10:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Move these to debug() like the one in check_cache range(), to save SPL space.
This hides cache problems, which were visibly reported so far.
I am opposed to this patch.
Wouldn't it make more sense to completely disable printf() and co.
in SPL if you're after saving space?
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c
> index dc309da..68cf62e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ static void v7_dcache_inval_range(u32 start, u32 stop, u32
> line_len)
> * invalidate the first cache-line
> */
> if (start & (line_len - 1)) {
> - printf("ERROR: %s - start address is not aligned - 0x%08x\n",
> - __func__, start);
> + debug("ERROR: %s - start address is not aligned - 0x%08x\n",
> + __func__, start);
> /* move to next cache line */
> start = (start + line_len - 1) & ~(line_len - 1);
> }
> @@ -77,8 +77,8 @@ static void v7_dcache_inval_range(u32 start, u32 stop, u32
> line_len)
> * invalidate the last cache-line
> */
> if (stop & (line_len - 1)) {
> - printf("ERROR: %s - stop address is not aligned - 0x%08x\n",
> - __func__, stop);
> + debug("ERROR: %s - stop address is not aligned - 0x%08x\n",
> + __func__, stop);
> /* align to the beginning of this cache line */
> stop &= ~(line_len - 1);
> }
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
