On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 03:43:17AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 16:36, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:04:00PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 15:20, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:12:30PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > > > > Am 19. März 2025 12:59:08 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > >In some cases we want to show a signed value to the user without > > > > > >needing > > > > > >to use the full printf() implementation. Add a new version of the > > > > > >simple_itoa() function to handle this. > > > > > > > > > > Where will this be used? > > > > > Why can't printf be used? > > > > > Why would this fit into this series which is about test improvements > > > > > and not about functional changes? > > > > > > > > It would be more fair to say that only one patch in this series is about > > > > testing and 5 are adding otherwise unused changes to functions that > > > > presumably are used in some later as yet to be posted series. > > > > > > Sure, would you like me to change the cover letter? > > > > No, I'd like to see the test by itself and defer the unused additions > > until there's something to review it alongside of. > > So you don't want simple_itoa_signed() or abuf_printf() until you see > the series which uses it? I'm struggling to square that with your > request to break things up into smaller chunks, though.
I'm sorry you find this normal requirement difficult. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
