On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:11:53AM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 9:00 AM Stefano Babic <sba...@denx.de> 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 > > > > But the new footprint overwrote the space for the env, and I had to > > change the layout.It was not something that I could not manage and in > > this specific case, customer could handle it. I cannot say I did > > something pretty wrong to bloat the bootloader, so my feeling was that > > there is not a specific part responsible for the increased size, but > > each component is slightly bigger and they sizes sum at the end. > > > > > > > Why default? Well, "everyone" > > > agrees that defaulting to EFI application support means the widest > > > choice of out of the box software support. > > > > I am unsure about this - just my two cents. > > > > I agree with you if we are talking about evaluation boards and / or > > boards supposed to run different distros (or in any case, more flavour > > of software). > > > > But there are a lot of "custom" boards (maintained in U-Boot) that runs > > for a specific project and won't run any other kind of software. If a > > device is a navigation system, a network controller, or whatever, it > > will just do this job until its EOL. > > > > Specially for older boards, a new feature should not be activated as > > default. At the beginning, police in U-Boot was to set just what should > > be required in the bootloader, without setting what is not needed as > > default. So default was off instead of on. > > I aslo think that would suit U-Boot better. For example, I have one > configuration where I need to squeeze U-Boot into 204 KiB. For me this > currently means I have to re-check the defconfig for every update to > disable new features that are now on by default. I think having those > default to off and enabling them via defconfig if required would be better.
Can SoCFPGA not set the option to make a link failure if you grow beyond 204KiB? As part of this thread, the only new default y thing since v2018.01 at least is CRC16-CCITT support in "hash". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
