On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:58:29AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/22/19 4:41 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > [...] > >>>>>>>>> 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. > > Nope, bloat is unhelpful growth of size, features are actually > helpful/useful. > > > 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. > > So we agree that's what this series should fix ? > > > 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. > > Which might be somewhat better than if the code is sprinkled with tiny > chunks of random pieces of code which are never used, but in total add > up to a lot of unused code in the binary.
If, with your USB custodian hat on, your answer to Heinrich is that his changes expose a more fundamental problem with the code that needs addressing then no, I'm not overriding your objection. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
