Hi Simon, On 1/3/25 02:41, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Jerome, > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 06:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 04:53:53PM +0100, Jerome Forissier wrote: >> >>> This series replaces the dynamic initcalls (with function pointers) with >>> static calls, and gets rid of initcall_run_list(), init_sequence_f, >>> init_sequence_f_r and init_sequence_r. This makes the code simpler and the >>> binary slighlty smaller: -2507 bytes/-0.23 % with LTO enabled and -1232 >>> bytes/-0.11 % with LTO disabled (xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig). >>> >>> Execution time doesn't seem to change noticeably. There is no impact on >>> the SPL. >> >> This leads to run-time failures on SH: >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/986701 > > I'm not a huge fan of this series in terms of the style, but this is a > significant code-size reduction! > > For the board_init_f() etc. functions, can you do a follow-up with a > comment indicating that logic must not be added?...i.e. that we don't > end up with variables, if(), etc. in these functions. I think that > would be a good rule to have.
I agree. I will add a comment in v3. Thanks, -- Jerome > > Regards, > Simon
