> On 21.02.2019, at 12:47, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > On 02/21/2019 02:30 AM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> Read the specified "arch" value from a legacy or FIT U-Boot image and >> store it in our SPL data structure. >> This allows loaders to take the target architecture in account for >> custom loading procedures. >> Having the complete string -> arch mapping for FIT based images in the >> SPL would be too big, so we leave it up to architectures (or boards) to >> overwrite the weak function that does the actual translation, possibly >> covering only the required subset there. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> > > I don't fully buy the argument that the generic mapping would be too big > though. Realistically you should be able to get away with 1 or 2 branches per > case, no? So that would be maybe 40 instructions?
The question I believe is not just code size (should be minimal) but the table size for the mapping (assuming it’s a table). Do we have any data on this to understand what order-of-magnitude this “too big” is? —Phil. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
