On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 09:06:35AM -0700, Daniel Schultz wrote: > Some commands include the U-Boot prompt (=>) in their output, > which can interfere with tools like labgrid that rely on prompt > detection to determine when a command has completed. This may cause > such tools to misinterpret partial output. > > To avoid this issue, it's better to update the command output itself > rather than modifying the actual U-Boot prompt. Changing the prompt > is not acceptable in many cases, as some boards have used the default > prompt (=>) for years, and altering it - especially just for testing - > could lead to inconsistencies or unintended side effects. > Instead, replace instances of the prompt that appear within command > output (not the real prompt) with an alternative like -> to ensure > correct parsing by tools that rely on prompt recognition. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Schultz <d.schu...@phytec.de> > --- > cmd/i2c.c | 2 +- > cmd/mtdparts.c | 12 ++++++------ > common/hash.c | 6 +++--- > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
This is two cases, and I'm not sure I like the proposal here, sorry. For
cmd/mtdparts.c, it's debug statements. We can change them, but are they
also enabled by default in anything? The other cases, we're changing
output along the lines of:
> - printf ("CRC32 for %08lx ... %08lx ==> ", addr, addr + count - 1);
> + printf("CRC32 for %08lx ... %08lx --> ", addr, addr + count - 1);
In each case, and I'm surprised there's not testing that globs on that
today. I see the wget case that uses "==>" and we do have a test that
checks it, today. Is your testing framework not able to handle "=>" in
the middle of a line? Thanks.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
