Hi Dario,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 08:25, Dario Binacchi
<dario.binac...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dario,
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 06:26, 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>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > cmd/booti.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
> > > index 62b19e834366..ea811244a0a9 100644
> > > --- a/cmd/booti.c
> > > +++ b/cmd/booti.c
> > > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int booti_start(struct bootm_info *bmi)
> > >
> > > /* Handle BOOTM_STATE_LOADOS */
> > > if (relocated_addr != ld) {
> > > - printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=%lx\n", ld,
> > > + printf("Moving Image from 0x%lx to 0x%lx, end=0x%lx\n",
> > > ld,
> > > relocated_addr, relocated_addr + image_size);
> > > memmove((void *)relocated_addr, (void *)ld, image_size);
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> >
> > I really don't like this...numbers are hex in U-Boot and this just
> > adds confusion.
>
> Sorry, but I'm quite confused.
> Doesn't printing 3 numbers in hexadecimal format with different
> formatting (two with `0x` and
> one without) create more confusion?
> At least we should ensure formatting consistency.
> Also, it seems to me that this patch:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240825122617.3708982-1-dario.binac...@amarulasolutions.com/
> has been considered correct.
>
> Thanks and regards,
IMO we should avoid adding 0x to things...particularly for addresses.
Better to remove it when it has crept in.
Regards,
SImon
