From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:06:55 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Convert p1_p2_rdb_pc to new spl In-Reply-To: <1348512607.25867.11@snotra> References: <20120922001324.GG16051@bill-the-cat> <1348512607.25867.11@snotra> Message-ID: <20120924190655.GI1797@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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? 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? -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: