On 2/21/19 1:13 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > On 21. 02. 19 10:04, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 2/21/19 9:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21.02.19 09:49, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 2/21/19 9:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21.02.19 09:41, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 2/21/19 9:40 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 09:29 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21.02.19 09:23, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 08:45 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20. 02. 19 2:58, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:56:19PM +0800, tien.fong.chee@intel. >>>>>>>>>>> com >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Drop the statically allocated get_contents_vfatname_block and >>>>>>>>>>>> dynamically allocate a buffer only if required. This saves >>>>>>>>>>>> 64KiB of memory. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan.ag...@toradex.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>>> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! >>>>>>>>>> please remove this patch (better both of them because they were >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> series) >>>>>>>>> I think patch 2/2 should be safe, because no memory size is >>>>>>>>> changed. >>>>>>>>> Basically, it just to release the allocated memory immediately when >>>>>>>>> it's not required, so other can re-use it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because they are breaking at least ZynqMP SPL. It is also too >>>>>>>>>> late in cycle to create random fix. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can't simply move 64KB from code to malloc without reflecting >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> by changing MALLOC space size. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Other boards with SPL fat could be also affected by this if they >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> allocate big malloc space. >>>>>>>>> So, any suggestion to get the patch 1/2 accepted? inform all board >>>>>>>>> maintainers to test it out? >>>>>>>> You already received feedback that it does break ZynqMP, so the >>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>> approach won't work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about you create a new kconfig option that allows you to say >>>>>>>> whether >>>>>>>> you want to use malloc or .bss for temporary data in the FAT driver. >>>>>>>> You >>>>>>>> can then have an _SPL_ version of that kconfig and check for it with >>>>>>>> IS_ENABLED() which should automatically tell you the right answer >>>>>>>> depending on whether you're in an SPL build or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you can set the SPL version to default malloc and the non-SPL >>>>>>>> version to default .bss. >>>>>>> Marek and Tom rini, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you guys okay with Alex's suggestion? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not a big fan of adding more and more ifdeffery. >>>>>> Is there some other option ? >>>>> >>>>> Is RAM up already at this point? Maybe we could improve the SPL malloc >>>>> mechanism to move allocations into DRAM once it's available. >>>> >>>> Well, the FAT buffers waste some 64kiB of bss, so we can use that area >>>> for malloc instead, no ? >>> >>> Yes, but that means you need to review every single board that uses FAT >>> in SPL today and adjust its malloc region size. >> >> That's quite likely ... I still think this patch is beneficial, it's >> much better to dynamically allocate the cluster size than have this >> 64kiB chunk of BSS carved out. >> > > ok. I have played with it a little bit and the patch exposed different > problem with one of my out of tree patch I am working on. > > Anyway that's being said I still think that patches like this shouldn't > come to the tree at this stage because it requires checking on other > boards. IIRC similar patch was around in past and there was also any > issue with it. > > Tom: up2you if you want to keep it in the tree or not.
This shouldn't have come in after RC2, so revert and let's fix it for next release. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
