Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Consolidate Kconfig entries

[Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>]

On 06.02.2014 19:59, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, once again, seeing some numbers would be good. :)
>>>
>>> What numbers do you want? Size comparisons with all SoC options on vs only one?
>>
>> Yes, size comparisions with all SoCs (for given family) turned on vs
>> only one turned on (done on kernel without this patch applied).
>>
>> Also size comparisons for ARCH_EXYNOS4 and ARCH_EXYNOS5 both turned
>> on vs only ARCH_EXYNOS4 or ARCH_EXYNOS5 turned on (with this patch
>> applied).
>
> exynos_defconfig-based build data below.
>
>     text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> 5109986  319952  270196 5700134  56fa26 obj-tmp/vmlinux   # all 4+5 SoCs enabled
> 5088312  296912  270196 5655420  564b7c obj-tmp/vmlinux  # EXYNOS5
> off, all EXYNOS4 SoCs enabled
> 5088032  296896  270196 5655124  564a54 obj-tmp/vmlinux  # Only 4210 enabled
> 5079205  299928  270068 5649201  563331 obj-tmp/vmlinux  # EXYNOS4
> off, all EXYNOS5 SoCs enabled
> 5063355  286792  270068 5620215  55c1f7 obj-tmp/vmlinux   # Only 5250 enabled
> 5067815  298152  270068 5636035  55ffc3 obj-tmp/vmlinux    # Only
> 5250+5420 enabled
> 5053357  278480  269364 5601201  5577b1 obj-tmp/vmlinux  # Only 5440 enabled
>
> The main difference of disabling 5440 is that it removed the PCI
> support, which explains that reduction in size.
>
> So, I would argue that theere might be some value in disabling whole
> families (since it saves about 20k of text and the same of data), but
> that there's less gain per SoC member. 5440 is an oddball in this
> setup so it might make sense to treat it differently due to the PCI
> aspect.

Well, the numbers basically represent what I expected. Thanks for 
checking this. So I second this patch even more now, but maybe let's 
change it a bit and introduce third entry for Exynos5440, since it 
doesn't really belong to either of ARCHs. Candidates that come to my 
mind are ARCH_EXYNOS5440 (seems to specific) or ARCH_EXYNOS5_SERVER. 
Feel free to suggest anything better, though.

Best regards,
Tomasz