Hi Tom, On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 09:48:08PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: >> Hi Dirk, >> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Dirk Eibach <dirk.eib...@gdsys.cc> wrote: >> > Hi Bin, >> > >> >> ... >> >> The simple fix is to change change iocon to a more larger size since >> >> it has a 64MB flash. Dirk, can you please comment? >> > >> > The problem is the flash partition layout, coming from a time where >> > u-boot was an order of magnitude smaller :) >> > >> >> I guess so. >> >> > Updating partition layout in tens of thousands of devices in the field >> > is not an option for us. >> > >> >> I suspect 256KB won't fit anyway, if trying to make use of these new >> U-Boot features,eg: using driver model adds some more footprints too. >> So in your deployment, you just upgrade those devices in the field to >> latest U-Boot (new version) but not changing partition layout, for fix >> only? > > I'm not convinced that we shouldn't be able to be useful in 256KB. > Sure, a kitchen-sink EVM + config will be large but iocon is a defined > production type config. If we can't make this work, I'm going to be > worried. I've already gotten some aside pokes about making U-Boot > shrink down when you turn stuff off. > > I want to cycle back to saying that we need to look at ways to > work-around the gcc issue that's keeping a bunch of unused strings in > the resulting binary. >
So, what's our best way to do with this PR? I am worried that since this iocon board is already at an edge, any ramdom bug fix (to common codes) in the future could be the next victim. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
