Hej all, On Wednesday, July 16th, 2025 at 3:35 AM, E Shattow <e...@freeshell.de> wrote: >
> > Is there some reason for the value from documentation about the > architecture? Or is it arbitrary? > > I don't really see the sense in a default value which is simply popular > but not founded in an architectural reasoning. > > The values do not change often (ever?) so I miss why there is any > default at all. > > -E No, there is no documentation justifying this value. My reasoning was the reverse, there is no justification either that this default value should be almost an order of magnitude lower than ARM64 as typically generated RISCV code size is similar and thus the typical kernel size as well. This is reflected in the most commonly used value in the existing riscv defconfigs as well as other boards not yet mainlined into u-boot. With a lower value, typical kernels generated from Yocto or others are too big to be able to be booted. In my idea the default value, when provided, should reflect the most common use case which can then be overridden if wanted. I understand it was a very bold move on my side as a first submission to challenge a default value and touch over 30 boards, so i won't be offended if this is not accepted. The learning experience on just submitting a patch here and learning about patman and co is already a success for me. Still I consider the proposed new default as sane and maybe more future oriented for new boards to come. Cheers, Martin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
