From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtest: Fix end address of increment/decrement test
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:00:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274392850.18152.253.camel@petert> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100520203251.D1BA6CCF026@gemini.denx.de>
Hi Wolfgang,
> > As far as the output, my vote would be to align the end address to a
> > 32-bit address and add 3. eg assuming a starting address of 1000 and
> > ending addresses of:
> > 0x1ffc - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00001fff
> > 0x1ffd - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00001fff
> > 0x1ffe - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00001fff
> > 0x1fff - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00001fff
> > 0x2000 - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00002003
> > 0x2001 - output: Testing 00001000 ... 00002003
>
> No, please do not implement such automatic alignment; it may be useful
> for some cases, but it may as well hurt, for example if you
> intentionally want to run mtest with misalignment, like giving both
> odd start and end addresses.
I didn't express it well, but what I was getting at was that the
"Testing X .. Y" would ideally state exactly what is being tested.
Unaligned addresses would still be allowed. I think right now the end
address is always automatically aligned to the same alignment as the
start address though, so the current output is very misleading.
eg:
mw.l 0x1000 0x12345678 0x1000
mtest 0x1003 0x1ffc 1 1
Testing 00001003 ... 00001ffc:
...
md 0x1000 10; md 0x1ff0 10
00001000: 12345600 00000000 00000000 00000000 .4V.............
00001010: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................
00001020: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................
00001030: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................
00001ff0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000078 ...............x
00002000: 12345678 12345678 12345678 12345678 .4Vx.4Vx.4Vx.4Vx
00002010: 12345678 12345678 12345678 12345678 .4Vx.4Vx.4Vx.4Vx
00002020: 12345678 12345678 12345678 12345678 .4Vx.4Vx.4Vx.4Vx
You can see the starting alignment was respected, but the ending
alignment was truncated to be 32-bit aligned to the starting address.
In the above example, I think it would be nice to see "Testing
00001003 ... 00001ffe". Or some other way such that the user knows that
their input wasn't executed to a T; their end address was truncated.
Best,
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-20 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-20 17:08 [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtest: Fix end address of increment/decrement test Peter Tyser
2010-05-20 18:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-05-20 19:07 ` Peter Tyser
2010-05-20 19:44 ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-05-20 20:11 ` Peter Tyser
2010-05-20 20:32 ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-05-20 22:00 ` Peter Tyser [this message]
2010-05-20 22:07 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1274392850.18152.253.camel@petert \
--to=ptyser@xes-inc.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox