On 11/22/19 2:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:27:16AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/22/19 1:32 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:23:56AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 11/21/19 11:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 11/21/19 10:59 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/21/19 9:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:09:29PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hello Soeren, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> when trying to add support for function key support in the USB >>>>>>>>> keyboard >>>>>>>>> driver u-boot.imx for the TBS2910 surpassed the maximum size for >>>>>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/marex/u-boot-usb/builds/614059004 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you remember why on the TBS2910 board this size is limited to >>>>>>>>> 0x5fc00? Other i.MX6 boards like the Wandboard allow a much larger >>>>>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The limit is defined here: >>>>>>>>> include/configs/tbs2910.h:80: >>>>>>>>> #define CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT 392192 /* (CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET - 1024) >>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could the value CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0x60000 be enlarged? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many i.MX6 defconfigs use CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0xC0000. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The nature of these boards (aimed at end users) means that we just do >>>>>>>> not want to / cannot really move the stored environment. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another possibility would be to reduce the image size by using >>>>>>> CONFIG_REGEX=n which should be fine for a board with only one supported >>>>>>> network interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the board was fine before your patchset got applied and this is just >>>>>> a workaround for added bloat, which reduces functionality. I dislike >>>>>> trading functionality for bloat, sorry. >>>>> >>>>> One persons "bloat" is another persons "added functionality". >>>> >>>> It would seem this board did not suffer from the lack of this particular >>>> functionality before, and I would say that a board should stay at least >>>> as functional as it was when it was added. Replacing existing >>>> functionality with random unrelated new one makes no sense. >>> >>> Was it tho? I believe we're talking about supporting some additional >>> keys via USB keyboard. This board does in fact expect users to be at >>> the U-Boot prompt via USB keyboard. >> >> How did you reach this conclusion ? It seems to be some sort of devkit. > > It came up in one of the previous threads about this board and what we > can / cannot do about the size constraint and the board maintainers > unhappiness about the overall size growth and broken releases (until > size growth became a link error on the platform).
Link please ? It sounds relevant to this thread too. >>>>> I believe >>>>> the specific changes in question that once again push this board over >>>>> fall in to that grey area. Whatever size-trimming the board maintainer >>>>> is fine with next is fine with me, but needs to get ack'd by someone. >>>> >>>> Or, the other option is, make these new extra features configurable and >>>> disable them on this board. And so there should be no size problem. >>> >>> But that direction leads to saying every slight bit of functionality >>> requires a new Kconfig entry. Some levels of bugfixes as well. >> >> The other option is, we will sink in bloat and suffer endless size problems. > > Yes, it is a hard balancing act. Stepping back, perhaps a "minimal" or > "complete" choice for USB HID devices would make sense and allow us > further areas to reduce size, on the minimal portion. Or maybe there is a way to help compiler optimize that USB key code handling better. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
