On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2 April 2018 at 10:45, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Simon Glass <s...@google.com> wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> On 2 April 2018 at 09:43, André Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 01/04/18 14:19, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:34:19PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:57 PM, <s...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 August 2017 at 09:39, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 03:45:53PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The CONFIG_BLK conversion involves quite invasive changes in the >>>>>>>>> U-Boot >>>>>>>>> code, with #ifdefs and different code paths. We should try to move >>>>>>>>> over to >>>>>>>>> this soon so we can drop the old code. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this will applicable to SPL too? >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, we are having SPL size issues with few Allwinner families, if >>>>>> enable SPL_DM any suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> How close, and have you looked at the u-boot-spl.map to see what you can >>>>> maybe trim? Or areas to look at reducing in code complexity? >>>> >>>> The Boot ROM limit for all Allwinner SoCs known so far is 32KB. The A64 >>>> SPL (AArch64) stands at ~31KB at the moment. Yes, we went over the map >>>> and picked most low hanging fruits already. >>>> So far we discussed several mitigations, but mostly to cover the >>>> "natural" SPL code size grow over time: >>>> 1) The AArch64 exception vectors take 1KB, plus an unnecessary ~1.6KB of >>>> padding (for a 2KB architectural alignment). Given that the vectors are >>>> used only for debugging purposes, we could scrap them entirely or >>>> construct them on the fly in some other SRAM. So would free about 2.5KB, >>>> ideally. Lowest hanging fruit so far. >>>> 2) We can compile the SPL in AArch32 mode, which can use the Thumb2 >>>> encoding. This reduces the size significantly, to about 20KB. The >>>> disadvantage is using a second cross-compiler or even a additional >>>> cross-compiler for native builds, complicating the build process. >>>> I maintain a branch for enabling FEL booting here [1], which provides >>>> two _defconfigs (one 32-bit for SPL, one 64-bit for U-Boot proper). >>>> There are no technical disadvantages in running the SPL in 32-bit, so >>>> this is mostly a build issue. >>> >>> FYI 32-bit tegra compiles SPL with ARMv4T and U-Boot proper with >>> ARMv7. It should be fairly easy to do, >> >> ARMv4 and ARMv7 are both 32 bit though, as opposed to 32 and 64 bit in >> the case of Allwinner A64 > > Yes, but that is just a matter of compiler or compiler flags. My point > was we should be able to use different build for each without too much > work.
It's a lot more work for the way most distros build u-boot, but TBH the sooner I don't need to the better ;-) _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
