Hi Heiko, On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:11:38 +0200, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> > Let us assume I keep 12K. Here is a current build of cam_enc_4xx: > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 439526 13148 311092 763766 ba776 ./u-boot > > 9073 840 500 10413 28ad ./spl/u-boot-spl > > > > And the map file gives __start = 0x20, __bss_start = 0x26e0, and > > __bss_end = __image_copy_end = _end = 0x28d4, which makes the > > size of the non-BSS part of the image equal to 9952 bytes (thus below > > 10K) and the BSS part size is 500 bytes, below 2K. > > > > So, it seems I could just replace > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE 12288 > > #define CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE (4*1024) > > > > with > > > > #define CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE 10240 > > #define CONFIG_SPL_BSS_MAX_SIZE (2*1024) > > > > and keep the UBL cfg file untouched -- any future size issue with > > image or BSS size would imply changing these values and uptating the > > UBL cfg file. > > > > Would that be ok? > > Yes, that seems good to me, but I could not test it ... I can do a diff of the binaries with and without the patch -- normally, they should be the same except for the U-Boot version identification. Would that do? > bye, > Heiko Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
