Hi Dario, On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 06:49, <dario...@libero.it> wrote: > > > Il 2 aprile 2020 alle 20.54 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > Hi Dario, > > > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 13:34, <dario...@libero.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Il 31 marzo 2020 alle 1.57 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:05, Dario Binacchi <dario...@libero.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Now reading a 32 bit value from a device-tree property can be > > > > > expressed > > > > > as reading the first element of an array with a single value. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario...@libero.it> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > drivers/core/of_access.c | 16 +--------------- > > > > > drivers/core/ofnode.c | 23 ++--------------------- > > > > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > Can you please check the code-size delta in SPL on a suitable board? > > > > > > I have a black beaglebone available (am335x_evm_defconfig). > > > > > > u-boot-spl.map generated without applying the refactoring patch > > > .... > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32 > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x2e drivers/built-in.o > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32_index > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x38 drivers/built-in.o > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32_default > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x12 drivers/built-in.o > > > > > > u-boot-spl.map genarated with the refactoring patch applied > > > .... > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32_index > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x38 drivers/built-in.o > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32 > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x8 drivers/built-in.o > > > .text.ofnode_read_u32_default > > > 0x0000000000000000 0x14 drivers/built-in.o > > > > Possibly, but a better test is to build your branch with the patch in: > > > > buildman -b <branch> <board> > > > > Then check the size: > > > > buildman -b <branch> -sS > > > > or function detail: > > > > buildman -b <branch> -sSB > > > > That will give us a true picture for SPL. It will show incremental > > size increase with your patch. > > Hi Simon, > this is the buildman response: > ... > 03: dm: core: support reading a single indexed u32 value > 04: dm: core: refactor functions reading an u32 from dt > arm: (for 4/708 boards) all +11.5 bss -10.0 text +21.5 > am335x_hs_evm : all +24 text +24 > u-boot: add: 1/0, grow: 1/-1 bytes: 64/-38 (26) > function old new > delta > ofnode_read_u32_index - 62 > +62 > ofnode_read_u32_default 18 20 > +2 > ofnode_read_u32 46 8 > -38 > am335x_hs_evm_uart: all +24 text +24 > u-boot: add: 1/0, grow: 1/-1 bytes: 64/-38 (26) > function old new > delta > ofnode_read_u32_index - 62 > +62 > ofnode_read_u32_default 18 20 > +2 > ofnode_read_u32 46 8 > -38 > am335x_evm : bss -24 text +24 > u-boot: add: 1/0, grow: 1/-1 bytes: 64/-38 (26) > function old new > delta > ofnode_read_u32_index - 62 > +62 > ofnode_read_u32_default 18 20 > +2 > ofnode_read_u32 46 8 > -38 > am335x_boneblack_vboot: all -2 bss -16 text +14 > u-boot: add: 1/0, grow: 1/-1 bytes: 64/-38 (26) > function old new > delta > ofnode_read_u32_index - 62 > +62 > ofnode_read_u32_default 18 20 > +2 > ofnode_read_u32 46 8 > -38
This does not actually look like SPL though, only U-Boot. I hope that means that SPL doesn't increase in size. Anyway for U-Boot proper it looks like it adds about 24 bytes of code. I think it is worth it. Regards, Simon
