On 04/12/2018 10:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 11.04.18 16:43, Dinh Nguyen wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> On 04/11/2018 02:37 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/11/2018 02:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/11/2018 04:52 AM, Dinh Nguyen wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> u-boot$ git reset --hard v2018.01 ; bu socfpga_cyclone5 ; ls -la >>>>>>>>>> spl/u-boot-spl.bin >>>>>>>>>> HEAD is now at f3dd87e0b9 Prepare v2018.01 >>>>>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 marex marex 52902 Apr 11 00:34 spl/u-boot-spl.bin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> u-boot$ git reset --hard v2018.03 ; bu socfpga_cyclone5 ; ls -la >>>>>>>>>> spl/u-boot-spl.bin >>>>>>>>>> HEAD is now at f95ab1fb6e Prepare v2018.03 >>>>>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 marex marex 59706 Apr 11 00:34 spl/u-boot-spl.bin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try bisecting out the commit which caused this 7 kiB growth between >>>>>>>>>> 2018.01 and 2018.03 . Even those 53 kiB are quite borderline, but it >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> at 53 kiB for a while (2017.05 is also ~53 kiB) >>>>> >>>>> Do you have a size constraint and are not setting the correct CONFIG >>>>> options so that it becomes a build failure? >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Doing the bisect points me to this commit: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> commit fa2c14676c7c6f3115dd4d9b2a4cc3b35c3ad2a2 >>>>>>>>> Author: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat Feb 10 16:54:38 2018 -0500 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> configs: Re-sync with CONFIG_DISTRO_DEFAULTS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A number of platforms include config_distro_defaults.h but do >>>>>>>>> not enable >>>>>>>>> CONFIG_DISTRO_DEFAULTS. As they plainly intended to, set that >>>>>>>>> flag and >>>>>>>>> re-sync config files. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Doing a revert of the above commit shrinks the SPL back down to ~7 >>>>>>>>> kiB. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dinh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It looks like the enablement of CONFIG_DISTRO_DEFAULTS, enables these >>>>>>>> configs: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CONFIG_ISO_PARTITION=y >>>>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_ISO_PARTITION=y >>>>>>>> # CONFIG_AMIGA_PARTITION is not set >>>>>>>> # CONFIG_SPL_AMIGA_PARTITION is not set >>>>>>>> CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION=y >>>>>>>> CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION_ENTRIES_NUMBERS=128 >>>>>>>> CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION_ENTRIES_OFF=0 >>>>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_EFI_PARTITION=y >>>>>>>> CONFIG_PARTITION_UUIDS=y >>>>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_UUIDS=y >>>>>>>> # CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID is not set >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is contributing to the SPL growth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Turning the following config options off subtracts 7k from the SPL: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +# CONFIG_SPL_ISO_PARTITION is not set >>>>>>> +# CONFIG_SPL_EFI_PARTITION is not set >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure if these are needed? >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO not on SoCFPGA. Also CCing Tom. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all of those options are part of CONFIG_DISTRO_DEFAULTS and are >>>>> needed so that booting from various distro media works. >>>> >>>> In SPL on boards which usually boot from SDMMC or QSPI NOR ? How is EFI >>>> or ISO partition needed there ? >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't think ISO partitioning is needed in SPL. However, for GPT I'm not >>> 100% sure. People tend to go with GPT more often than not these days - and >>> to be able to fetch U-Boot proper from a GPT partition may make sense. >>> >>> How much reduction do you get when you only disable >>> CONFIG_SPL_ISO_PARTITION? >>> >> >> ~3 kiB > > Ok, so that's not enough to get us back to reasonable space, but it's at > least a step in the right direction. I sent a patch to disable > CONFIG_SPL_ISO_PARTITION for everyone by default ;). > > If we remove all printfs from part_efi.c we could for example gain > another 1.5kb. But I'm not sure that's worth it - and if feels like > we're shaving on the wrong end at this point. > > Is there any other big chunk in there that wastes space?
The entire EFI support, which is never used on SoCFPGA to my knowledge, esp. in SPL . > Also, Marek, could you maybe tell the linker that we only have 64-8kb > space available, so it fails compilation? That way we could catch these > issues in Travis already. Dinh, can you send a patch for that ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
