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 smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB0EC433EF for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82856401EA; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2sxNMVFbQvB9; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B69401C5; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EDD1BF95F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE67401C5 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sl7CMeeqddhu for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from smtpweb147.aruba.it (smtpweb147.aruba.it [62.149.158.147]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C29401C3 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.50.220] ([146.241.179.156]) by Aruba Outgoing Smtp with ESMTPSA id JOphnjhRUXmFAJOphnvQfi; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 01:03:09 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aruba.it; s=a1; t=1644796989; bh=TSk2Jajg/nWjzgybT5ZegnR/PZw03Ph8FSKvMjWnjiQ=; h=Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; b=EdVD45hJM5CE+w4oe/0VsBy0LvvwC/WwCMf2xgzLYlD31TB3HRdbPsV9BDK+JJ25f yzPn3KGdX/HMngo/1VOTnTD1aYbRtfS6kMBfR9G3a/hCSvOQzdr2FsWKKvVKBibBkL ryynrL3dSzLH5QIJ+xfHEyT+BbkcYE7YO8G3iqhGvjTRWapz7Lx1A+EJAnczs1ByFb RwvbVdST32u8v6c+s/k6YcTudjxUfjH6SCrbCly8zXlCGxDfR/pfVShVIig1H9NizD ukI7ekyU8jrCmLtWgXT3Rh6YOdBU3QnlJktMx7J7n+CHj5m6W3UvH0KntPlyeHeiJ1 +64eUnsIHDPWg== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 01:03:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Arnout Vandecappelle , buildroot@buildroot.org References: <20220202171035.1740791-1-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> <20220202171035.1740791-2-giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com> From: Giulio Benetti In-Reply-To: X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJKXFnbJeIjJm1rR3lXMiQsn4jiEB5RzxQE1XmkwRHw3pU0M2ByiKoE3z4iszKYVdtj2nyd2uyBo696ye5dX/qZnEJQ947aisXlUBoFBoXFOrIGQB2Vp KVXNdh+2mjM5N2zRWxkmA/bBSB4yroa403+t47OpEptYsj9NBh7cGG5bnhrmZiRkM6QSv4PdU97cFRwQGPhpLMF62xnoLVg0TgkHWgUINmTIkfWXviGeWsS2 Thv8GeizwxPHbjDF9GkhOa3hHoOdKnCw9E19fF/li99LkK6vykptyKkGPqVAfSPcNnlDk5sDDVq3wztJ9oGQnnsRzqmrLL15Ckvi2MLbm4U= Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig: expand rootfs size to 120M X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi , Danilo Bargen , Suniel Mahesh Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" Hi Arnout, On 13/02/22 12:35, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > > On 02/02/2022 18:10, Giulio Benetti wrote: >> Default 60M for rootfs are not enough and generate a build failure, so >> let's expand rootfs size to 120M. > > Did you find out _why_ 64M wasn't enough for just the kernel and busybox? Is > it because of all the stupid modules in the default arm64 defconfig? But most > other arm64 defconfigs don't seem to need this... It is because of modules(30M) and linux "Image", it's not compressed, so it's 25M. So only for Linux+modules => 55M, plus the few other stuff(Busybox+libc etc.)1M Also, nothing changed since the beginning, so I don't know how could this happened: # git log --oneline configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig f51cbc33d9 configs/roc_pc_rk3399: fix U-Boot dependencies 80ae1aedcb configs/roc_rk3399_pc: new defconfig # git log --oneline roc-rk3399-pc/ 80ae1aedcb configs/roc_rk3399_pc: new defconfig U-Boot dependencies are host dependencies, so it doesn't impact. # git log --oneline fs/ext2: 5ece6be60b fs/ext2: fir (again) namespace for variables db7d786140 fs/ext2: fix namespace for variables 5631c38024 fs/ext2: pass a default string to filesystem label ... here board has been added So it doesn't seem a ext2 problem too. I can't understand how it could be building in the beginning. We have 2 solutions: - expand rootfs - use a compressed linux Image.gz(25M => 9M), but need target testing Honestly I don't think systems with SoCs like RK3399 have problems with 56M more, so I would go with expanding rootfs to 120M and if maintainer in Cc wants to shrink Linux and target testing it is welcome to send a patch. What do you think? Best regards -- Giulio Benetti Benetti Engineering sas >> >> Signed-off-by: Giulio Benetti >> --- >> configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig b/configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig >> index dfbc5e4f47..ae7cf19a80 100644 >> --- a/configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig >> +++ b/configs/roc_pc_rk3399_defconfig >> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_HOSTNAME="roc-rk3399-pc" >> BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_ISSUE="Welcome to ROC-RK3399-PC!" >> BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_EXT2=y >> BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_EXT2_4=y >> -BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_EXT2_SIZE="64M" >> +BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_EXT2_SIZE="120M" >> BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_DOSFSTOOLS=y >> BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_GENIMAGE=y >> BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_MTOOLS=y > > Unrelated by this patch, but the image doesn't have a FAT partition so > dosfstols and mtools aren't needed. > > Regards, > Arnout > _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot