Hi Tom, 2016-06-11 0:39 GMT+03:00 Tom Rini <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:51:20PM +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 15:37 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:31:30PM +0000, Langer, Thomas wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Hello Alexey, >> > > >> > > This feature is already available in u-boot, please look for >> > > 'print_buffer'. >> > >> > ... make this a candidate for moving over to the linux kernel way? >> >> Could you please elaborate here a little bit? >> I didn't quite understood what do you propose really... >> Switch in U-Boot to kernel's hexdump or send patches with U-Boot's >> print_buffer to LKML? > > OK, to be clear and answer both emails, we should:
I'm sorry but again I cannot understand your proposal completely :) > a) Only add the new header when calling the new function What do you mean here? > b) Add further parts to the series to convert current users of > print_buffer to these functions instead to reduce the mental changes one > makes when doing / reading U-Boot code vs Linux Kernel code. Agree, that definitely make sense. But note there's a subtle issue in there. Kernel's implementation of print_hex_dump() assumes debug level which in case of Linux kernel makes perfect sense. But for U-Boot it is barely usable. So we may keep prototype of print_hex_dump() as it is just ignorihg KERN_XXX stuff or have U-Boot's own version with the first argument removed. But in latter case we'll need to update those "current users" of print_hex_dump. Any thoughts? -Alexey _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
