On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:39:24 Stefan Roese wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2009 19:59:10 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > > really wish there was a define to control this. large devices are > > > > fine, but it sucks when majority of people dont hit this limit. > > > > > > What is the drawback of this code version? I have to admit that I > > > didn't compare code size, but this is the only possible drawback coming > > > to my mind. > > > > Can you please make such a comparison? I, too, would like to know how > > much of a difference that makes - I share Mike's concerns. > > OK, here we go: > > Canyonlands (using NAND) without this patch: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 339324 20044 336384 695752 a9dc8 ./u-boot > > and with this patch: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 339796 20044 336384 696224 a9fa0 ./u-boot > > So it's 472 bytes on this platform.
doesnt sound like it's worth the hassle to me. thanks for testing a bit. -mike _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
