On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 10:49:51AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 12:18:35PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > >> 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. > > > > For this PR, I think we need to push the fdt patch in question out and > > for the next release look at splitting up common/fdt_support.c into > > logical chunks. > > > > Do anyone volunteer to do this "splitting up common/fdt_support.c into > logical chunks"? I still cannot make ELDK work in my env thus cannot > make any further investigation :(
I'll put it on my TODO list. I'll leave ELDK support up to the denx folks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
