Faiz, On 31/01/20 11:44 pm, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Vignesh, > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 22:12, Vignesh Raghavendra <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> On 31/01/20 7:57 am, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Faiz, >>> >>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Faiz Abbas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> On 22/10/19 4:56 am, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> With a bit of code reordering we can support %p using the existing code >>>>> for ulong. >>>>> >>>>> Move the %p code up and adjust the logic accordingly. >>>>> >> >> [...] >>>> >>>> Retry time exceeded; starting again >>>> Problem booting with BOOTP >>>> SPL: failed to boot from all boot devices >>>> ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ### >>>> >>>> Reverting this patch on the latest U-boot master fixes the issue for me. >>>> >>>> I'll look into this more deeply tomorrow. Let me know if you see >>>> something obviously wrong with the patch. >>> >>> Well one thing is that eth_env_set_enetaddr() called from the board's >>> board.c has this: >>> >>> sprintf(buf, "%pM", enetaddr); >>> >>> which is not supported with tiny-printf. >> >> That is not true. %pM is supported when SPL_NET_SUPPORT is enabled. See: >> >> https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/lib/tiny-printf.c#L183 >> >> I added this specifically to support Ethernet Boot usecases on TI platforms >> >> But above commit seems to move pointer() function that formats the >> output under #ifdef DEBUG which definitely breaks %pM > > OK I see. I think it is too confusing to use #ifdef DEBUG in this code. > > One fix would be to change pointer() to return true if it actually > does something. I'll take a look. > > This code needs tests also. Vignesh, do you feel like writing something? >
Is there a testcase for full printf()? I am not sure where to look for. Is test/print_ut.c the right place to add new test? -- Regards Vignesh
