From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0EABCA0EFA for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4254B81E13; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:59:20 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denx.de; s=phobos-20191101; t=1756112360; bh=1J6ZwnUI3UT8Y5pvNJHgIXFnlvRe71EpUpV+psUGiAw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=C+xdnCYTX64BXMGsPXOuQWFTtuQrFf9d3H5fc8BwvQKCJCWl7FvhyRCrdswidVun/ drJlmB5JjSuBiVpfACHuScJYGf6swDFHj5Af6tkuCsDNuDFAJk4m5bgL3xw1Ac56jN 88N3qhs0JgsYKgPKuE7W+omGhhW4vOEmz2jjXymQvjjvzzvJjnq7zpE4BjiF9rNMzB BOrA2ZBnQ2CmtJ5y/DgbRO8q/pcpm68nGEIwxT9UDc9g3Q+ZdoDTLbQB6Uq9tg84zQ Ssrq7MvQ9bmlax2SPKLvuFKuFFAwkNaQYKOgVCyMQrzBxWf0DUFshQBcbhB4ey0sbf ZrV3Y9ON3/5Lw== Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id CF1D5828A2; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:59:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx.denx.de (mx.denx.de [IPv6:2a03:4000:64:cc:545d:19ff:fe05:8172]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78C71808AF for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:59:15 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pro@denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=denx.de header.i=@denx.de header.b="hYVYg37Y"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id ED98C1038C102; Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:59:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=denx.de; s=mx-20241105; t=1756112354; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to:references; bh=1J6ZwnUI3UT8Y5pvNJHgIXFnlvRe71EpUpV+psUGiAw=; b=hYVYg37Yr6sgN/mkb6XRvZrAdcX5y4MhzVspAmCd1BWy3bjw7LPyQ2otA4bQw1CyQ38+sy pR3/5o94uC46t8U/kp65nLbmh+I3dK0VrLCTlfTolQHP5C0O9DUnOxi2yKFKtBk+/sMM2Y D9gOiEVErecVCTRdkR0JAYlBM/4RgA7Cx7LQrZ/44HUpKtbEwpuASB7Oa+g+bRidRPbCVZ /vl+YtZKul7ZpI+eJ8S37/nsNwvaLNy3Au9zY6Fb2QQQWR56SVYAyLIy8Hm7doIVykxuuj 9BTyhbtAnNTbPM5kHS2Hzvi3/znSjR88e24QzweUc2z9Egqz7HRtvuCOU2JaOg== Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 10:59:09 +0200 From: Philip Oberfichtner To: Marek Vasut Cc: Tom Rini , u-boot@lists.denx.de, Mattijs Korpershoek , Michael Walle , Quentin Schulz , Sean Anderson , Simon Glass , Heinrich Schuchardt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Image size checks: Remove HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT Message-ID: References: <20250807102436.452691-1-pro@denx.de> <20250807102436.452691-2-pro@denx.de> <20250807162115.GZ124814@bill-the-cat> <06dd9037-af3d-48a3-974e-80db481c7121@mailbox.org> <20250807201142.GC124814@bill-the-cat> <4813ce12-ad82-4170-999c-e5f816a42708@mailbox.org> <20250807232421.GD124814@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:30:02AM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:50:17AM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: <...> > > > > Is it really worth adding this much of extra code? > > Ping @Marek: So are you in favor of this surplus of code? Hi Marek, You criticised the patch in its current form. Nevertheless, I'm left in the dark which outcome you would approve of. If I'm not missing out on something, we have three options: (a) Use the value zero to disable size limits, as this series proposes (b) Use XXX_HAS_SIZE_LIMIT consistently, implying a lot of extra code (c) Maintain the status quo, which is 80% of (a) and 20% of (b) I'd like to bring this thing to an end, finally. So could you please position yourself? Best regards, Philip