On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:14:03PM +0200, Franck JULLIEN wrote:
> 2011/7/18 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 05:06:09PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Applied both to next.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sascha
> >
> >> ---
> >> include/debug_ll.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/debug_ll.h b/include/debug_ll.h
> >> index e99ae7d..6b1b174 100644
> >> --- a/include/debug_ll.h
> >> +++ b/include/debug_ll.h
> >> @@ -35,9 +35,22 @@
> >> ch = ((v >> (i*4)) & 0xf);\
> >> ch += (ch >= 10) ? 'a' - 10 : '0';\
> >> PUTC_LL (ch); }})
> >> +
> >> +static __inline__ void PUTS_LL(char * str)
> >> +{
> >> + while (*str) {
> >> + if (*str == '\n') {
> >> + PUTC_LL('\r');
> >> + }
> >> + PUTC_LL(*str);
> >> + str++;
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> #else
> >> # define PUTC_LL(c) do {} while (0)
> >> # define PUTHEX_LL(v) do {} while (0)
> >> +# define PUTS_LL(c) do {} while (0)
> >>
> >> #endif
> >>
>
> Is there any reason for not using vsprintf in a printf_ll function
> which would use puts_ll / putc_ll ??
You would at least need a writable string buffer. I'd rather like to
keep the ll functions as simple as possible. Otherwise you end up
debugging the debug functions while hunting some lowlevel problem.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
