On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/21/2012 07:13:24 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:10PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > >> This is based on a merge of top-of-tree plus the 85xx tree and > >the spl > >> framework branch (it doesn't use the SPL framework code because > >of size > >> constraints, but I wanted to make sure there were no conflicts > >with it). > >> > >> Tested on P2020RDB-PC_NAND and P1021RDB-PC_36BIT_NAND. > > > >How close (or far) is this from using the framework due to size? > >And I > >will give the whole series a proper read and comment Monday. > > Configuring for P2020RDB-PC_NAND - Board: p1_p2_rdb_pc, Options: > P2020RDB,NAND > text data bss dec hex filename > 393179 31912 267088 692179 a8fd3 /tmp/u-boot//u-boot > 3612 388 0 4000 fa0 /tmp/u-boot//spl/u-boot-spl > > --------------------- SUMMARY ---------------------------- > Boards compiled: 1 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Size limit is 4096 bytes.
Right. But that's with your changes yes? Do you have the how-much for using the common framework was? Or just going (and I agree, it won't fit today) by the 96 bytes to spare that a new framework won't fit? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
