From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vignesh R Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 23:42:56 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] tiny-printf: Add support for %p format In-Reply-To: <20170407151051.GI19897@bill-the-cat> References: <20170407095034.27908-1-vigneshr@ti.com> <20170407151051.GI19897@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 4/7/2017 8:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:20:34PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: > >> Add support for %p, %pa[p], %pM, %pm and %pI4 formats to tiny-printf. >> %pM and %pI4 are widely used by SPL networking stack and is required if >> networking support is desired in SPL. >> >> Before this patch: >> $ size spl/u-boot-spl >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 99325 4899 218584 322808 4ecf8 spl/u-boot-spl >> >> After this patch (with CONFIG_SPL_NET_SUPPORT): >> $ size spl/u-boot-spl >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 99714 4899 218584 323197 4ee7d spl/u-boot-spl >> >> So, this patch adds ~390 bytes to code size. >> >> If CONFIG_SPL_NET_SUPPORT is not enabled then only %p, %pa, %pap are >> supported, this adds ~90 bytes to code size. > > Why do we need %p/%pa/%pap? I'm fine with adding %pM/%pm/%pI4 under > SPL_NET_SUPPORT as you've done. > Ok, I can drop support for %p/%pa/%pap. Its just that, I see debug() prints in SPL code that use them. If the agreement is not to worry them, I am fine with it.