From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933482AbcAKOJX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:09:23 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:36659 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933178AbcAKOJT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:09:19 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:09:15 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Elliott <elliott@hpe.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in
 efi_print_memmap
Message-ID: <20160111140915.GB2644@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1450402114-3606-1-git-send-email-elliott@hpe.com>
 <1450402114-3606-5-git-send-email-elliott@hpe.com>
 <20151221161629.GG4227@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <CAHp75VffR6FO=s5JeVPUPepVRyn-mwXF=juf+y1j44J69i3RKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160108121921.GI2532@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <CAHp75VcJ_gDs-Y3SO2Z7BRqPCwKXntBiW6UDF38Di5m5_HszWQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcJ_gDs-Y3SO2Z7BRqPCwKXntBiW6UDF38Di5m5_HszWQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 08 Jan, at 06:39:28PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec, at 04:35:12PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> >> >> index 635a955..030ba91 100644
> >> >> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> >> >> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> >> >> @@ -222,6 +222,25 @@ int __init efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range(void)
> >> >>       return 0;
> >> >>  }
> >> >>
> >> >> +char * __init efi_size_format(char *buf, size_t size, u64 bytes)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +     if (!bytes || (bytes & 0x3ff))
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu B", bytes);
> >> >> +     else if (bytes & 0xfffff)
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu KiB", bytes >> 10);
> >> >> +     else if (bytes & 0x3fffffff)
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu MiB", bytes >> 20);
> >> >> +     else if (bytes & 0xffffffffff)
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu GiB", bytes >> 30);
> >> >> +     else if (bytes & 0x3ffffffffffff)
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu TiB", bytes >> 40);
> >> >> +     else if (bytes & 0xfffffffffffffff)
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu PiB", bytes >> 50);
> >> >> +     else
> >> >> +             snprintf(buf, size, "%llu EiB", bytes >> 60);
> >> >> +     return buf;
> >>
> >> For me it looks like ffs with name in the table can be used.
> >
> > Could you provide a patch?
> 
> I will prepare something this weekend, or latest next week.
> 
> I suppose I can apply Robert's one on top of your efi/next and update it, right?

Yeah, that should work. Thanks.