On 09/24/2012 02:06:55 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
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?
Yes, pretty much the same as with the old nand_spl.
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?
The latter. When I get to a board with IFC (which has an 8K limit),
such as p1010rdb, I'll give it a try.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
