On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 05:44:05PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: > On 3/16/2017 2:18 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:11:06PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> 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. > > Which platform exactly? I don't see anything today that's quite that > > large. > Sorry, I had few debug prints enabled when I collected the stats. On > vanila u-boot for k2hk here are the stats: > u-boot-spi.gph 512K > u-boot.bin 448K > u-boot-nodtb.bin 420K
Yes, this is more in line with what I was seeing. > Still at least for k2 platforms DTBs alone are not to be blamed for > image size increase. Yes, features add size. And the desire to add more and more DTBs also increases the size. > > And can we not move towards the "normal" method of SPL loading > > the u-boot.img (or FIT) from? I guess the current architecture here is > > confusing me. > This has been same for all k2 platforms. I guess we have single image so > that user don't have to bother flashing multiple images for spi boot > given the fact that all other boot modes have single image. > > > Regardless, I still see the DT problem as the bigger one long term, and > > dra7xx shows that. And I agree we need to re-size how the flash is > > partitioned. > True. The next question is, given that Franklin is talking about being able to load the right DTB for any K2 platform basically, is the layout in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/736498/ really looking like it will be enough? > >> There is similar issue with dra7xx where flash partition for SPL is > >> running out due to addition of new code. > > The DRA flash partition is, and should be fine because we have the > > ROM-mandated limits and don't need to include U-Boot with the SPL image. > > The main U-Boot image however is growing and that is a DTB problem. The > > difference here between -nodtb and the .img (FIT) with all of the DTBs > > is over 300KiB. And that's mostly linear growth when compared with the > > single-DTB case. > I agree DTBs are adding to image size on DRA. But even SPL is growing > and is bound to exceed its 64K limit[1]. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9515551/ Yes, setting the initial size limit to 64KiB was a bad initial choice especially since we want to have more and more features in SPL too. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
