Hi Marek, On 19 May 2016 at 08:22, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > On 05/19/2016 06:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Marek, >> >> On 14 May 2016 at 15:41, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>> On 05/14/2016 11:22 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>>> On 14 May 2016 at 14:23, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>> On 05/14/2016 10:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>> Move these to debug() like the one in check_cache range(), to save SPL >>>>>> space. >>>>> >>>>> This hides cache problems, which were visibly reported so far. >>>>> I am opposed to this patch. >>>> >>>> Sure, but see check_cache_range(). It uses debug(). In fact I found >>>> the at91 cache problem only after trying #define DEBUG in the code >>>> there. >>> >>> Which is the reason we should really be vocal about such cache misuse. >>> I had a few of such cache problems bite me too, which is why I would >>> like to avoid silencing this warning with debug() by default. >>> >>> I think check_cache_range() should also be fixed and should use printf() >>> by default. >>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to completely disable printf() and co. >>>>> in SPL if you're after saving space? >>>> >>>> Or maybe we need something that prints a message in U-Boot proper, but >>>> not SPL? I'll take a look. >>> >>> But what if you trigger the issue only in SPL ? >> >> Yes, but is that likely? So far I don't think the cache is enabled in SPL... > > Yeah, it's probably unlikely. > > btw have you tried patching away all console IO support in SPL? Does it > save space?
No I have not. I imagine it would, though. There is also the option now of using the debug UART, which avoids the small amount of serial/console overhead. [snip] Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
