Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in efi_print_memmap

[Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>]

On Tue, 19 Jan, at 09:32:26AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Robert Elliott <elliott@hpe.com>
> >
> > Print the base address for each range in decimal alongside the size.
> > Use a "(size @ base)" format similar to the fake_memmap kernel parameter.
> >
> > Print the range and base in the best-fit B, KiB, MiB, etc. units rather than
> > always MiB. This avoids rounding, which can be misleading.
> >
> > Use proper IEC binary units (KiB, MiB, etc.) rather than misuse SI
> > decimal units (KB, MB, etc.).
> >
> > old:
> >     efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory  |   |  |  |  |  |  |   |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c7fffffff) (16384MB)
> >
> > new:
> >     efi: mem61: [Persistent Memory  |   |  |  |  |  |  |   |WB|WT|WC|UC] range=[0x0000000880000000-0x0000000c7fffffff] (16 GiB @ 34 GiB)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Elliott <elliott@hpe.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Matt, seems another approach is not in favour, which means we rather
> stick with this one. But see one comment below.
 
Thanks Andy. I like the below patch (with the included space), but as
I said when reviewing Robert's version, I'm really not in favour of
the "@ address" portition of the string.

Andy, could you submit a v2 with the space fix and without the @
<addr> bit?