On 25/08/2024 19:36, E Shattow wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 5:26 AM Dario Binacchi <dario.binac...@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.binac...@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); -- 2.43.0From 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
-- // Caleb (they/them)
