> On 13 Mar 2025, at 12:58 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 07:14:36PM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote: >>>> On 12 Mar 2025, at 9:05 PM, Sven Peter <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 13:03, Aditya Garg wrote: > > ... > >>> I don't have a strong opinion either way: for SMC I just need to print >>> FourCC keys for debugging / information in a few places. >>> >>> I'm preparing the SMC driver for upstreaming again (after a two year delay :-() >>> and was just going to use macros to print the SMC FourCC keys similar to >>> DRM_MODE_FMT/DRM_MODE_ARG for now to keep the series smaller and revisit >>> the topic later. >>> >>> Right now I have these in my local tree (only compile tested so far): >>> >>> #define SMC_KEY_FMT "%c%c%c%c (0x%08x)" >>> #define SMC_KEY_ARG(k) (k)>>24, (k)>>16, (k)>>8, (k), (k) >> >> That seems to be a nice alternative, which I guess Thomas was also suggesting. > > I don't think it's "nice". Each of the approaches has pros and cons. I would prefer vsprintf, but if it's not there, that remains as nice right? > You can start from bloat-o-meter here and compare it with your %p extension. > > Also, can you show the bloat-o-meter output for the vsprintf.c? vsprintf isn't a kernel module, is it? I'll have to compile a new kernel I guess. > >>> which are then used like this: >>> >>> dev_info(dev, >>> "Initialized (%d keys " SMC_KEY_FMT " .. " SMC_KEY_FMT ")\n", >>> smc->key_count, SMC_KEY_ARG(smc->first_key), >>> SMC_KEY_ARG(smc->last_key)); > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
