On 11/22/19 3:53 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:38:51AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> 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. > > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-April/365297.html > >>>>>>> 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. > > Perhaps. But my point is that every little functional change or > enhancement does not need a Kconfig option.
Except this leads to slow and steady accumulation of bloat, and as we already see for quite a while, this is problematic for more and more boards. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
