[...] On Friday 10 March 2017 11:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> Yes, I agree that initial DT layout of 512K may not have been good >> design, but it would be good to have an agreeable way of fixing up MTD >> partitions when there is overflow. So, is fdt_fixup_mtdparts() preferred >> approach? > You make a good point about fdt_fixup_mtdparts() being non-trivial to > have happen correctly in all cases above, so OK, lets put that aside. > I'll also accept that previous best wisdom of not shoving tons of stuff > into the cmdline, rather than passing it in the device tree, isn't > correct anymore. > > But the big, un-tackled problem is that the old DT layout is failing > because we're constantly increasing the number of full linux DTB files > we're including in an image and thus increasing the size of our blob > every time. We need to stop and think and maybe design things > differently. Perhaps it's time for more platforms to have a spot on > their storage where the DT is supposed to be, and we only use a fall > back one that's included in U-Boot if it's not found? Franklin already > posted a patch to have something kind-of similar be able to happen > (which is to say, go from a generic DTB to the correct-for-the-HW one).
I agree that DTB files are making u-boot image bulky. But it does not seem to be problem due to addition of DT alone. For example SPI boot image on K2 platform is two stage SPL+U-Boot combined into one single image u-boot-spi.gph which is about 555K. General boot image u-boot.bin is about 491K and u-boot-nodtb.bin is 432K. So even w/o dtbs SPI image may overflow and its because of new code/framework changes. There is similar issue with dra7xx where flash partition for SPL is running out due to addition of new code. -- Regards Vignesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
