On 13 Mar 2025, at 12:58 AM, Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 07:14:36PM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 12 Mar 2025, at 9:05 PM, Sven Peter [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 13:03, Aditya Garg wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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