Hi,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 12:36, E Shattow <luc...@gmail.com> 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);
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
>
> From 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) ?
Yes, we should avoid these prefixes as they can confuse people into
thinking that hex is not the default.
In other cases where this is needed, for 0x you can use %#x
Regards,
Simon
