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