Hi, On 19/12/17 13:51, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> From: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:38:59 +0000 >> >> Hi Maxime, >> >> thanks for having a look! >> >> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>> So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat >>>> below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over >>>> the edge. So since v2017.11 u-boot.itb is already too big for the >>>> traditional MMC env location. >>> >>> So I've had a quick look about what could go possibly go away in our >>> current armv8 config (using the pine64+ defconfig). Let me know if >>> some are actually vitals: >>> >>> - FIT_ENABLE_SHA256_SUPPORT >>> - CONSOLE_MUX >>> - CMD_CRC32 >>> - CMD_LZMADEC >>> - CMD_UNZIP >>> - CMD_LOADB >>> - CMD_LOADS >>> - CMD_MISC (actually implementing the command sleep) >>> - ISO_PARTITION (yes. For CDROMs.) >> >> As Alex mentioned, this is needed for some installer images, which come >> as ISOs. So if possible, we should keep this in. >> >>> - VIDEO_BPP8, VIDEO_BPP16 >>> - VIDEO_ANSI >>> - SHA256 >>> - LZMA >> >> From just looking at the names I am fine with the rest gone. But let me >> test tonight if there are any side effects. >> >> Some of them seem useful, but I would leave enabling them to the actual >> users. If someone needs it, they can enable them and loose the raw MMC >> environment. I think this is a fair trade-off. >> >>> Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from >>> 516kB to 478kB, making it functional again *and* allowing us to enable >>> the DT overlays that seem way more important than any feature >>> mentionned above (and bumps the size to 483kB). >> >> How important is the raw MMC environment for the ARM64 boards, actually? >> Most of the rationale for the 32-bit side seemed to apply to legacy use >> cases only. Do we have reports/complaints from 64-bit users? > > For me/us (OpenBSD) the environment is still important. I have many > setups where U-Boot lives on a uSD card but the installed OS lives on > a USB device. In that scenario I set boot_targets to boot the EFI > bootloader and OS off the USB disk. This is very helpfull for testing > new versions of U-Boot as I can simply swap the uSD card. But for > some setups this is essential as OpenBSD doesn't support the SD/MCC > controller on all ARM hardware yet (but we do support it on > Allwinner).
I see, but I wasn't arguing for dropping the environment altogether, more for supporting FAT environments *only*. So how important is preserving existing environments over a firmware update in your scenario? I think this is the killer question here, isn't it? I'm inclined to just drop raw MMC environment support from sunxi64 boards and then enjoy the ~450KB more worth of code, until we hit the first MB boundary. I have builds with all (DDR3) A64 board DTs in the binary [1], which would be larger than 504K anyway. Cheers, Andre. [1] https://github.com/apritzel/pine64/commit/ee12bea43 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
