On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:31 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 09:28:21AM +0800, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:22 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 01:12:14AM +0800, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add "%ll" modifier support for tiny printf.
> > > >
> > > > - Tested on ARM32 and ARM64 systems.
> > > > - Tested "%lld", "%llu", "%llx" and "%p" format with
> > > > minimum and maximum ranges. Compared tiny printf
> > > > output with full printf.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon....@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > lib/tiny-printf.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > What's the use case for this, how much does it grow the size, and can
> > > the code in question be changed to use a different format modifier or be
> > > debug() instead? Tiny printf isn't intended to cover all formats but
> > > rather still allow some amount of printf on constrained systems.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > This is to support printf %lld, %llu and %llx and 64-bit %p when
> > CONFIG_USE_TINY_PRINTF=y is enabled.
> > In 64-bit system, phys_size_t and phys_addr_t are unsigned long long.
> > Printf these variables will see rubbish in existing tiny printf.
> >
> > Example %ll printf;
> > printf("9223372036854775807 ==> %lld \n", (long long)9223372036854775807);
> > printf("0xffffffffffffffff ==> 0x%llx \n", (unsigned long
> > long)0xffffffffffffffff);
> >
> > There are few issues I've noticed with original tiny printf:
> > - Some common codes use %ll format
> > - %p in tiny printf only support 32-bit, it can't support 64-bit address.
> >
> > If DEBUG is defined and with tiny printf. You can see all rubbish x
> > for %llx printf. The most serious issue is it cause system hang at
> > line below (printf from common code).
> > addr=x level=0
> > idx=x PTE at level 16384: x
> > Creating table for virt 0xx
> > Setting 4000 to addr=5000
> > addr=x level=0
> > idx=x PTE at level 16384: x
> > idx=x PTE at level 20480: x
> > Checking if pte fits for virt=x size=x blocksize=x
> > Setting PTE 5000 to block virt=x
> > addr=x level=1073741824
> > idx=x PTE at level 16384: x
> > addr=x level=1073741824
> > idx=x PTE at level 16384: x
> > idx=x PTE 1 at level 20488: x
> > Checking if pte fits for virt=x size=x blocksize=x
> > Setting PTE 5008 to block virt=x
> > addr=x level=
> >
> > Example output after apply this patch:
> > idx=0 PTE 8000 at level 0: 9003
> > idx=3 PTE 9018 at level 1: a003
> > Checking if pte fits for virt=c0600000 size=1fa00000 blocksize=40000000
> > addr=c0600000 level=2
> > idx=0 PTE 8000 at level 0: 9003
> > idx=3 PTE 9018 at level 1: a003
> >
> >
> > ARM64:
> > ----------
> > It increase 200 bytes.
> >
> > Before:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 69618 5296 232 75146 1258a spl/u-boot-spl
> >
> > After:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 69818 5296 232 75346 12652 spl/u-boot-spl
> >
> >
> > ARM32:
> > ----------
> > It increase 644 bytes.
> >
> > Before:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 31825 2968 132 34925 886d spl/u-boot-spl
> >
> > After:
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 32469 2968 132 35569 8af1 spl/u-boot-spl
>
> That's a lot, especially since we have tiny printf platforms that are
> really on the edge. Can you just not use TINY_PRINTF when using DEBUG?
Yes, we can. Our platform still have space for this.
> Maybe we need a Kconfig symbol for some debug stuff. But I don't think
> we can just add this.
Regards
Ley Foon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
