From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:15:20 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Convert p1_p2_rdb_pc to new spl In-Reply-To: <20120924190655.GI1797@bill-the-cat> (from trini@ti.com on Mon Sep 24 14:06:55 2012) Message-ID: <1348514120.25867.15@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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