On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 03:56:14AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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.
And "bloat" and "features" are interchangable terms. I really am trying to be more responsive than ever to size growth in common, rather than board specific areas. And I agree, some investigation in to ways that might reduce the size of binary support for USB HID devices is good. Figuring out if we can make this series: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=135448 not also increase the overall size, or increase it less, is good. Hiding the content of 2/5 behind a CONFIG option in turn brings us back to "the code is too messy and full of #ifdef" lines. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
