Message ID | 20210317181840.3975687-1-sjg@chromium.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | display_options: Start to unify print_buffer() and hexdump | expand |
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:18:27AM +1300, Simon Glass wrote: > At present we have two ways of showing a hex dump. Once has been in U-Boot > since the dawn of time and the other was recently added from Linux. > > They both have their own unique features. > > This series makes a few changes to bring them closer together. It also > adds support for logging a buffer, which is useful since it can put it > through the same log drivers as other logging output. > > Also it adds tests, so we can check the behaviour. > > The code-size impact of the main part of this series is 160 bytes on > Thumb2, which seems acceptable. However the final patch adds another 600 > bytes or so, which is not. This seems good, and to set aside the RFC for now. But it needs to be rebased on master now as 12/13 doesn't apply (and I don't see the "why" and just 1-11 fails to build for sandbox. Thanks.
Hi Tom, On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 06:42, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:18:27AM +1300, Simon Glass wrote: > > > At present we have two ways of showing a hex dump. Once has been in U-Boot > > since the dawn of time and the other was recently added from Linux. > > > > They both have their own unique features. > > > > This series makes a few changes to bring them closer together. It also > > adds support for logging a buffer, which is useful since it can put it > > through the same log drivers as other logging output. > > > > Also it adds tests, so we can check the behaviour. > > > > The code-size impact of the main part of this series is 160 bytes on > > Thumb2, which seems acceptable. However the final patch adds another 600 > > bytes or so, which is not. > > This seems good, and to set aside the RFC for now. But it needs to be > rebased on master now as 12/13 doesn't apply (and I don't see the "why" > and just 1-11 fails to build for sandbox. Thanks. Unfortunately I forgot about this one. I'll send it again. I still think we should hold off on the RFC patch due to the code-size problem, although I'm not sure it can be solved. Regards, Simon