| Message ID | 20210208200903.28084-2-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add %p4cc printk modifier for V4L2 and DRM fourcc codes | expand |
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Add a printk modifier %p4cc (for pixel format) for printing V4L2 and DRM > pixel formats denoted by fourccs. The fourcc encoding is the same for both > so the same implementation can be used. Thank you for an update with the examples how current users will be converted. Below review is based on the users I had seen so far and assumptions made in this code. I see that it's tagged by maintainers, but I can't help to comment again on this. In any case the decision is up to them. ... > +V4L2 and DRM FourCC code (pixel format) > +--------------------------------------- > + > +:: > + > + %p4cc > + > +Print a FourCC code used by V4L2 or DRM, including format endianness and > +its numerical value as hexadecimal. > + > +Passed by reference. > + > +Examples:: > + > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something should be added into documentation why). ... > +static noinline_for_stack > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > +{ > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without parentheses). > + char *p = output; > + unsigned int i; > + u32 val; > + > + if (fmt[1] != 'c' || fmt[2] != 'c') > + return error_string(buf, end, "(%p4?)", spec); > + > + if (check_pointer(&buf, end, fourcc, spec)) > + return buf; > + > + val = *fourcc & ~BIT(31); > + > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fourcc); i++) { > + unsigned char c = val >> (i * 8); ... > + /* Weed out spaces */ > + if (c == ' ') > + continue; None of the existing users does that. Why? > + /* Print non-control ASCII characters as-is */ > + if (isascii(c) && isprint(c)) { > + *p++ = c; > + continue; > + } > + > + *p++ = '('; > + p = hex_byte_pack(p, c); > + *p++ = ')'; > + } > + > + strcpy(p, *fourcc & BIT(31) ? " big-endian" : " little-endian"); > + p += strlen(p); > + > + *p++ = ' '; > + *p++ = '('; > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > + sizeof(u32)); This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). > + *p++ = ')'; > + *p = '\0'; > + > + return string(buf, end, output, spec); > +}
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: ... > > +static noinline_for_stack > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > +{ > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > parentheses). > > + val = *fourcc & ~BIT(31); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fourcc); i++) { > > + unsigned char c = val >> (i * 8); > > ... > > > + /* Weed out spaces */ > > + if (c == ' ') > > + continue; > > None of the existing users does that. Why? > > > + /* Print non-control ASCII characters as-is */ > > + if (isascii(c) && isprint(c)) { > > + *p++ = c; > > + continue; > > + } > > + > > + *p++ = '('; > > + p = hex_byte_pack(p, c); > > + *p++ = ')'; > > + } To be on constructive side, I would propose to replace above with something like: __le32 val; val = cpu_to_le32(*fourcc & ~BIT(31)); p += string_escape_mem(&val, sizeof(*fourcc), output, sizeof(output), ESCAPE_NP | ESCAPE_HEX, NULL);
Hi Andy, On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > Add a printk modifier %p4cc (for pixel format) for printing V4L2 and DRM > > pixel formats denoted by fourccs. The fourcc encoding is the same for both > > so the same implementation can be used. > > Thank you for an update with the examples how current users will be > converted. Below review is based on the users I had seen so far and > assumptions made in this code. I see that it's tagged by maintainers, > but I can't help to comment again on this. In any case the decision is > up to them. > > ... > > > +V4L2 and DRM FourCC code (pixel format) > > +--------------------------------------- > > + > > +:: > > + > > + %p4cc > > + > > +Print a FourCC code used by V4L2 or DRM, including format endianness and > > +its numerical value as hexadecimal. > > + > > +Passed by reference. > > + > > +Examples:: > > + > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > should be added into documentation why). The spaces are expected to be at the end only. I can add such example if you like. There are no fourcc codes with spaces in the middle in neither V4L2 nor DRM, and I don't think the expectation is to have them either. > > ... > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > +{ > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > parentheses). Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an existing practice elsewhere. Note that neither DRM nor V4L2 currently has such fourcc codes currently. > > > + char *p = output; > > + unsigned int i; > > + u32 val; > > + > > + if (fmt[1] != 'c' || fmt[2] != 'c') > > + return error_string(buf, end, "(%p4?)", spec); > > + > > + if (check_pointer(&buf, end, fourcc, spec)) > > + return buf; > > + > > + val = *fourcc & ~BIT(31); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fourcc); i++) { > > + unsigned char c = val >> (i * 8); > > ... > > > + /* Weed out spaces */ > > + if (c == ' ') > > + continue; > > None of the existing users does that. Why? The existing instances of printing fourcc codes in V4L2 are scattered around with priority on implementation simplicity. As we have a single simplementation here, I'm not really worried about that. > > > + /* Print non-control ASCII characters as-is */ > > + if (isascii(c) && isprint(c)) { > > + *p++ = c; > > + continue; > > + } > > + > > + *p++ = '('; > > + p = hex_byte_pack(p, c); > > + *p++ = ')'; > > + } > > + > > + strcpy(p, *fourcc & BIT(31) ? " big-endian" : " little-endian"); > > + p += strlen(p); > > + > > + *p++ = ' '; > > + *p++ = '('; > > > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > > + sizeof(u32)); > > This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). Sure, you can do that, and I can then review your patch and point to the coding style documentation. :-) > > > + *p++ = ')'; > > + *p = '\0'; > > + > > + return string(buf, end, output, spec); > > +} >
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: ... > > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > > should be added into documentation why). > > The spaces are expected to be at the end only. I can add such example if > you like. There are no fourcc codes with spaces in the middle in neither > V4L2 nor DRM, and I don't think the expectation is to have them either. But then the code suggests otherwise. Perhaps we need to extract skip_trailing_spaces() from strim() and use it here. ... > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > +{ > > > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > > parentheses). > > Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below > 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an > existing practice elsewhere. Where? \xHH is quite well established format for escaping. Never heard about '(xx)' variant before this very series. > Note that neither DRM nor V4L2 currently has such fourcc codes currently. ... > > > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > > > + sizeof(u32)); > > > > This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). > > Sure, you can do that, and I can then review your patch and point to the > coding style documentation. :-) Yes, you can. The problem is that we agreed with others to improve readability by letting some lines to be longer, so the code can lie on one line rather be broken on two or more.
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:58:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: ... > __le32 val; > > val = cpu_to_le32(*fourcc & ~BIT(31)); > > p += string_escape_mem(&val, sizeof(*fourcc), output, sizeof(output), ESCAPE_NP | ESCAPE_HEX, NULL); sizeof(val) and as we are discussing in parallel emails something like skip_trailing_spaces() to be applied after above. The rationale of the above, that we reuse existing code and existing standard for the escaping non-printable characters.
Hi Andy, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:58:40AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > > > > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > > > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > > > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > > > should be added into documentation why). > > > > The spaces are expected to be at the end only. I can add such example if > > you like. There are no fourcc codes with spaces in the middle in neither > > V4L2 nor DRM, and I don't think the expectation is to have them either. > > But then the code suggests otherwise. Perhaps we need to extract > skip_trailing_spaces() from strim() and use it here. But this wouldn't affect the result in this case, would it? > > ... > > > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > > > > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > > > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > > > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > > > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > > > parentheses). > > > > Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below > > 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an > > existing practice elsewhere. > > Where? \xHH is quite well established format for escaping. Never heard about > '(xx)' variant before this very series. Mauro referred to FourCC codes while reviewing an earlier version of this, such as RGB(15). Does \× imply only the next two characters are hexadecimal? I have to admit I don't remember seeting that, nor \x notation is common. > > > Note that neither DRM nor V4L2 currently has such fourcc codes currently. > > ... > > > > > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > > > > + sizeof(u32)); > > > > > > This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). > > > > Sure, you can do that, and I can then review your patch and point to the > > coding style documentation. :-) > > Yes, you can. The problem is that we agreed with others to improve readability > by letting some lines to be longer, so the code can lie on one line rather be > broken on two or more. Making the end of the line invisible without scrolling vertically doesn't improve readability for me. It does depend on window width though. I'd simply only use that if 80 isn't enough.
On Tue 2021-02-09 19:47:55, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:58:40AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > > > > > > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > > > > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > > > > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > > > > should be added into documentation why). > > > > > > The spaces are expected to be at the end only. I can add such example if > > > you like. There are no fourcc codes with spaces in the middle in neither > > > V4L2 nor DRM, and I don't think the expectation is to have them either. > > > > But then the code suggests otherwise. Perhaps we need to extract > > skip_trailing_spaces() from strim() and use it here. > > But this wouldn't affect the result in this case, would it? Is there any existing implementation that would skip spaces, please? IMHO, this might just hide problems. We should show exactly what is stored unless anyone explicitly ask for skipping that spaces. > > > > ... > > > > > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > > > > > > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > > > > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > > > > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > > > > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > > > > parentheses). > > > > > > Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below > > > 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an > > > existing practice elsewhere. > > > > Where? \xHH is quite well established format for escaping. Never heard about > > '(xx)' variant before this very series. > Mauro referred to FourCC codes while reviewing an earlier version of this, > such as RGB(15). This is quite easy to parse. The problem is that it is not clear whether it is hexa or decimal number. > Does \× imply only the next two characters are hexadecimal? I have to admit > I don't remember seeting that, nor \x notation is common. Hmm, the /xyy format might be hard to parse. What about using the same approach as drm_get_format_name()? I mean printing '?' when the character is not printable. The exact value is printed later anyway. The advantage is that it will always printk 4 characters. > > > Note that neither DRM nor V4L2 currently has such fourcc codes currently. > > > > ... > > > > > > > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > > > > > + sizeof(u32)); > > > > > > > > This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). Ailus, please do not take this as a criticism of your patch. I understand that it might have sounded like this but Andy did not mean it. Andy prefers slightly longer lines over wrapping only few characters. It makes sense to me. There are more people with the same opinion. Even checkpatch.pl tolerates lines up to 100 characters these days. Of course, this is a subsystem specific preference. You did not have any chance to know it. There is no need to fight over it. Best Regards, Petr
Hi Petr, Thanks for the comments. On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:14:28PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2021-02-09 19:47:55, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:58:40AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > > > > > > > > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > > > > > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > > > > > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > > > > > should be added into documentation why). > > > > > > > > The spaces are expected to be at the end only. I can add such example if > > > > you like. There are no fourcc codes with spaces in the middle in neither > > > > V4L2 nor DRM, and I don't think the expectation is to have them either. > > > > > > But then the code suggests otherwise. Perhaps we need to extract > > > skip_trailing_spaces() from strim() and use it here. > > > > But this wouldn't affect the result in this case, would it? > > Is there any existing implementation that would skip spaces, please? > > IMHO, this might just hide problems. We should show exactly what > is stored unless anyone explicitly ask for skipping that spaces. I discussed this with Hans and we concluded spaces shouldn't be dropped. Spaces can be present in the codes themselves in any case. > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > > > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > > > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > > > > > > > > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > > > > > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > > > > > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > > > > > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > > > > > parentheses). > > > > > > > > Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below > > > > 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an > > > > existing practice elsewhere. > > > > > > Where? \xHH is quite well established format for escaping. Never heard about > > > '(xx)' variant before this very series. > > > Mauro referred to FourCC codes while reviewing an earlier version of this, > > such as RGB(15). > > This is quite easy to parse. The problem is that it is not clear > whether it is hexa or decimal number. > > > Does \× imply only the next two characters are hexadecimal? I have to admit > > I don't remember seeting that, nor \x notation is common. > > Hmm, the /xyy format might be hard to parse. > > What about using the same approach as drm_get_format_name()? > I mean printing '?' when the character is not printable. > The exact value is printed later anyway. > > The advantage is that it will always printk 4 characters. "?" can be expanded by the shell. We (me and Hans) both though a dot (".") would be good. These aren't going to be present in valid fourcc codes in any case. > > > > > > Note that neither DRM nor V4L2 currently has such fourcc codes currently. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, > > > > > > + sizeof(u32)); > > > > > > > > > > This is perfectly one line (in this file we have even longer lines). > > Ailus, please do not take this as a criticism of your patch. > I understand that it might have sounded like this but Andy did > not mean it. > > Andy prefers slightly longer lines over wrapping only few characters. > It makes sense to me. There are more people with the same opinion. > Even checkpatch.pl tolerates lines up to 100 characters these days. > > Of course, this is a subsystem specific preference. You did not have > any chance to know it. There is no need to fight over it. Fair enough; I can violate the coding style a little in v7.
On Fri 2021-02-12 13:28:56, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:14:28PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Tue 2021-02-09 19:47:55, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:58:40AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:43:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:11 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) > > > > > > > > > > > > This misses examples of the (strange) escaping cases and wiped > > > > > > whitespaces to make sure everybody understands that 'D 12' will be the > > > > > > same as 'D1 2' (side note: which I disagree on, perhaps something > > > > > > should be added into documentation why). > > I discussed this with Hans and we concluded spaces shouldn't be dropped. > > Spaces can be present in the codes themselves in any case. Great! > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > +static noinline_for_stack > > > > > > > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, > > > > > > > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > > > > > + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have any evidence / document / standard that the above format is > > > > > > what people would find good? From existing practices (I consider other > > > > > > printings elsewhere and users in this series) I find '(xx)' form for > > > > > > hex numbers is weird. The standard practice is to use \xHH (without > > > > > > parentheses). > > > > > > > > > > Earlier in the review it was proposed that special handling of codes below > > > > > 32 should be added, which I did. Using the parentheses is apparently an > > > > > existing practice elsewhere. > > > > > > > > Where? \xHH is quite well established format for escaping. Never heard about > > > > '(xx)' variant before this very series. > > > > What about using the same approach as drm_get_format_name()? > > I mean printing '?' when the character is not printable. > > The exact value is printed later anyway. > > > > The advantage is that it will always printk 4 characters. > > "?" can be expanded by the shell. We (me and Hans) both though a dot (".") > would be good. These aren't going to be present in valid fourcc codes in > any case. The dot (".") looks fine to me. Best Regards, Petr
diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst b/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst index 160e710d992f..da2aa065dc42 100644 --- a/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst +++ b/Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst @@ -567,6 +567,22 @@ For printing netdev_features_t. Passed by reference. +V4L2 and DRM FourCC code (pixel format) +--------------------------------------- + +:: + + %p4cc + +Print a FourCC code used by V4L2 or DRM, including format endianness and +its numerical value as hexadecimal. + +Passed by reference. + +Examples:: + + %p4cc BG12 little-endian (0x32314742) + Thanks ====== diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c index 7d60f24240a4..78c94159d9d5 100644 --- a/lib/test_printf.c +++ b/lib/test_printf.c @@ -647,6 +647,22 @@ static void __init fwnode_pointer(void) software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes); } +static void __init fourcc_pointer(void) +{ + struct { + u32 code; + char *str; + } const try[] = { + { 0x20104646, "FF(10) little-endian (0x20104646)", }, + { 0xa0104646, "FF(10) big-endian (0xa0104646)", }, + { 0x10111213, "(13)(12)(11)(10) little-endian (0x10111213)", }, + }; + unsigned int i; + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(try); i++) + test(try[i].str, "%p4cc", &try[i].code); +} + static void __init errptr(void) { @@ -692,6 +708,7 @@ test_pointer(void) flags(); errptr(); fwnode_pointer(); + fourcc_pointer(); } static void __init selftest(void) diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c index 3b53c73580c5..ef50557e07b3 100644 --- a/lib/vsprintf.c +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c @@ -1733,6 +1733,54 @@ char *netdev_bits(char *buf, char *end, const void *addr, return special_hex_number(buf, end, num, size); } +static noinline_for_stack +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc, + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) +{ + char output[sizeof("(xx)(xx)(xx)(xx) little-endian (0x01234567)")]; + char *p = output; + unsigned int i; + u32 val; + + if (fmt[1] != 'c' || fmt[2] != 'c') + return error_string(buf, end, "(%p4?)", spec); + + if (check_pointer(&buf, end, fourcc, spec)) + return buf; + + val = *fourcc & ~BIT(31); + + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*fourcc); i++) { + unsigned char c = val >> (i * 8); + + /* Weed out spaces */ + if (c == ' ') + continue; + + /* Print non-control ASCII characters as-is */ + if (isascii(c) && isprint(c)) { + *p++ = c; + continue; + } + + *p++ = '('; + p = hex_byte_pack(p, c); + *p++ = ')'; + } + + strcpy(p, *fourcc & BIT(31) ? " big-endian" : " little-endian"); + p += strlen(p); + + *p++ = ' '; + *p++ = '('; + p = special_hex_number(p, output + sizeof(output) - 2, *fourcc, + sizeof(u32)); + *p++ = ')'; + *p = '\0'; + + return string(buf, end, output, spec); +} + static noinline_for_stack char *address_val(char *buf, char *end, const void *addr, struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) @@ -2162,6 +2210,7 @@ char *fwnode_string(char *buf, char *end, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, * correctness of the format string and va_list arguments. * - 'K' For a kernel pointer that should be hidden from unprivileged users * - 'NF' For a netdev_features_t + * - '4cc' V4L2 or DRM FourCC code, with endianness and raw numerical value. * - 'h[CDN]' For a variable-length buffer, it prints it as a hex string with * a certain separator (' ' by default): * C colon @@ -2259,6 +2308,8 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, return restricted_pointer(buf, end, ptr, spec); case 'N': return netdev_bits(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt); + case '4': + return fourcc_string(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt); case 'a': return address_val(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt); case 'd': diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 92e888ed939f..79858e07d023 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -6557,9 +6557,11 @@ sub process { $specifier = $1; $extension = $2; $qualifier = $3; - if ($extension !~ /[SsBKRraEehMmIiUDdgVCbGNOxtf]/ || + if ($extension !~ /[4SsBKRraEehMmIiUDdgVCbGNOxtf]/ || ($extension eq "f" && - defined $qualifier && $qualifier !~ /^w/)) { + defined $qualifier && $qualifier !~ /^w/) || + ($extension eq "4" && + defined $qualifier && $qualifier !~ /^cc/)) { $bad_specifier = $specifier; last; }