On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On 19/12/17 14:20, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> 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. >> >> So, with FIT_ENABLE_SHA256_SUPPORT, LZMADEC, ISO_PARTITION and the >> overlay support, we're at 500kB. >> >> Again, tight, but under the limit. > > Phew! ;-) > >> >>>> - 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. >> >> Yes, that's my view too. >> >>>> 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? >> >> Pretty much as important as it is on arm I guess. We just have less >> history, but the same use cases. >> >> I'd really like to give at least one release for transition, which >> would mean having a schedule like this: >> >> - in 2018.01, merge those config removals so that we have least have >> something that works quite fast >> >> - in 2018.03, merge the multiple environment patches. We seem to >> have reached a consensus here, so I'm not really concerned that we >> will have it merged. >> >> - in 2018.05, if needed, remove the raw MMC options and complete the >> transition to FAT. > > That sounds very reasonable to me, thanks for writing this down! > > This gives us an only intermediate shortage of features for defconfig. > > We should encourage everyone who builds (and ships) firmware right now > to drop MMC env support already, if they tinker with the .config anyway. > That is, if there is no legacy usage to be concerned about.
All these trimming(if it fits) seems to be nice for now, but what if once driver-model MMC, reset, pinctrl, clk, regulator are IN? of-course we can't do anything with SPL size because of SRAM constraints, but U-Boot proper size? why can't we increase the u-boot partition size? thanks! -- Jagan Teki Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer Hyderabad, India. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
