On 10/05/17 12:44, Rob Herring wrote:
> On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
> is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how many
> nodes and properties in the DT which have a corresponding struct device_node
> and struct property in the ke
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> >> On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
> >> is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how ma
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
>> is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how many
>> nodes and properties in the DT which have a cor
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Rob Herring wrote:
> On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
> is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how many
> nodes and properties in the DT which have a corresponding struct device_node
> and struct property in the
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
> is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how many
> nodes and properties in the DT which have a corresponding struct device_node
> and struct prope
On kernels with a minimal config and a RAM target in the 100s of KB, DT
is quite a hog of runtime memory usage. How much is dependent on how many
nodes and properties in the DT which have a corresponding struct device_node
and struct property in the kernel. Just skipping disabled nodes saves a
lo
6 matches
Mail list logo