On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:51:51PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 10/01/19 15:44, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:00:13AM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > >> Hi Tom, Soeren, > >> > >> On 09/01/19 23:39, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote: > >>>> Hi Soeren, > >>>> > >>>> On 08/01/19 12:03, Soeren Moch wrote: > >>>>> Hi Stefano, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 08.01.19 11:24, Stefano Babic wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Soeren, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 08/01/19 11:14, Soeren Moch wrote: > >>>>>>> Stefano, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> can you apply this for v2019.01? This is really a important fix to > >>>>>>> avoid > >>>>>>> environment and u-boot binary overwriting each other. > >>>>>>> It is also a small local fix which cannot hurt anybody else. > >>>>>> I will apply and I send a new PR. This is not the first fix in this > >>>>>> direction, u-boot becomes pretty large, it is becoming a common > >>>>>> problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Thank you very much. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, "in the good old days (tm)" there was much effort put into not > >>>>> increasing the binary size for existing boards when adding new features. > >>>> > >>>> Right, fully agree. > >>>> > >>>>> Unfortunately this is not true anymore. > >>>> > >>>> I get in the same trouble with more as one project. A previous rule of > >>>> thumb was to reserve 512KB to the bootloader because it was pretty > >>>> unthinkable that bootloader could be larger. Mhmmhh....this remember me > >>>> someone else who said that 640Kb is enough for everything. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, as you noted, this is a big problem in field and it makes > >>>> difficult an upgrade without returning back the device to factory, what > >>>> nobody wants. > >>> > >>> So, this is more on me, so I should probably explain a little, and point > >>> at the biggest culprit too. The biggest at times culprit and sometimes > >>> controversial thing is that we default to the EFI subsystem being on by > >>> default. This is 50KiB on tbs2910. > >> > >> I am not sure if we should point to EFI as responsible for the increased > >> footprint or it is due to the sum of several components / factors. I > >> just report my experience in last month : I had to port U-Boot for a > >> customer from a not very old release (2017.01) to the current. 2017.01 > >> had already (apart of FIT support) all features the customer needed, but > >> there are issues(NAND, UBI) and I kew that they were solved later. > >> Processor was an old PowerPC 8308, a quite dead SOC. I have not changed > >> a lot in board code, but of course I had to reconfigure a lot. At the > >> end, everything worked but I was quite astonished about footprint. I had: > >> > >> 2017.01 u-boot.bin 443452 > >> 2018.11 u-boot.bin 654684 > >> I'm splitting my reply here into two emails. This here concerns the > > heck out of me. But I don't see it on MPC8308RDB. There I see: > > powerpc: (for 1/1 boards) all -124241.0 bss -131040.0 data -48.0 text > > +6847.0 > > MPC8308RDB : all -124241 bss -131040 data -48 text +6847 > > u-boot: add: 108/-85, grow: 121/-49 bytes: 22672/-148318 > > (-125646) > > Maybe I confuse you - this is a custom board, similar to MPC8308RDB, but > it is not MPC8308RDB. But nevertheless, I could not understand the > difference is sitze.
Right, I understand, that's just the first MPC83xx board I spotted, and I wanted to see if all platforms had such unreasonable growth. You're showing your custom platform went up by _200_ kilobytes. > > And in terms of .bins: > > -rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 337400 Jan 10 09:37 > > /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/01_of_11922_g80d261881f93ee474d1c9188b5c2b5b42b0c4e6f_powerpc--T2080QDS--R/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin > > -rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 345804 Jan 10 09:37 > > /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/11922_of_11922_g0157013f4a4945bbdb70bb4d98d680e0845fd784_Prepare-v2018.11/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin > > > > I am doing all of mpc83xx now to see if something else trips such a > > large growth. > > > > I will do the same here on this board and try to understand where the > difference is coming from. I will report to you, then. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
