[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] board: tbs2910: Remove FIT support in defconfig to reduce u-boot size

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:51:51PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 10/01/19 15:44, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:00:13AM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >> Hi Tom, Soeren,
> >>
> >> On 09/01/19 23:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >>>> Hi Soeren,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/01/19 12:03, Soeren Moch wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Stefano,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 08.01.19 11:24, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Soeren,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 08/01/19 11:14, Soeren Moch wrote:
> >>>>>>> Stefano,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> can you apply this for v2019.01? This is really a important fix to avoid
> >>>>>>>  environment and u-boot binary overwriting each other.
> >>>>>>> It is also a small local fix which cannot hurt anybody else.
> >>>>>> I will apply and I send a new PR. This is not the first fix in this
> >>>>>> direction, u-boot becomes pretty large, it is becoming a common problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you very much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, "in the good old days (tm)" there was much effort put into not
> >>>>> increasing the binary size for existing boards when adding new features.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right, fully agree.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Unfortunately this is not true anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> I get in the same trouble with more as one project. A previous rule of
> >>>> thumb was to reserve 512KB to the bootloader because it was pretty
> >>>> unthinkable that bootloader could be larger. Mhmmhh....this remember me
> >>>> someone else who said that 640Kb is enough for everything.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, as you noted, this is a big problem in field and it makes
> >>>> difficult an upgrade without returning back the device to factory, what
> >>>> nobody wants.
> >>>
> >>> So, this is more on me, so I should probably explain a little, and point
> >>> at the biggest culprit too.  The biggest at times culprit and sometimes
> >>> controversial thing is that we default to the EFI subsystem being on by
> >>> default.  This is 50KiB on tbs2910.
> >>
> >> I am not sure if we should point to EFI as responsible for the increased
> >> footprint or it is due to the sum of several components / factors. I
> >> just report my experience in last month : I had to port U-Boot for a
> >> customer from a not very old release (2017.01) to the current. 2017.01
> >> had already (apart of FIT support) all features the customer needed, but
> >> there are issues(NAND, UBI) and I kew that they were solved later.
> >> Processor was an old PowerPC 8308, a quite dead SOC. I have not changed
> >> a lot in board code, but of course I had to reconfigure a lot. At the
> >> end, everything worked but I was quite astonished about footprint. I had:
> >>
> >> 2017.01	u-boot.bin 443452
> >> 2018.11 u-boot.bin 654684
> >> I'm splitting my reply here into two emails.  This here concerns the
> > heck out of me.  But I don't see it on MPC8308RDB.  There I see:
> >    powerpc: (for 1/1 boards) all -124241.0 bss -131040.0 data -48.0 text +6847.0
> >             MPC8308RDB     : all -124241 bss -131040 data -48 text +6847
> >                u-boot: add: 108/-85, grow: 121/-49 bytes: 22672/-148318 (-125646)
> 
> Maybe I confuse you - this is a custom board, similar to MPC8308RDB, but
> it is not MPC8308RDB. But nevertheless, I could not understand the
> difference is sitze.

Right, I understand, that's just the first MPC83xx board I spotted, and
I wanted to see if all platforms had such unreasonable growth.  You're
showing your custom platform went up by _200_ kilobytes.

> > And in terms of .bins:
> > -rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 337400 Jan 10 09:37 /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/01_of_11922_g80d261881f93ee474d1c9188b5c2b5b42b0c4e6f_powerpc--T2080QDS--R/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin
> > -rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 345804 Jan 10 09:37 /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/11922_of_11922_g0157013f4a4945bbdb70bb4d98d680e0845fd784_Prepare-v2018.11/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin
> > 
> > I am doing all of mpc83xx now to see if something else trips such a
> > large growth.
> > 
> 
> I will do the same here on this board and try to understand where the
> difference is coming from. I will report to you, then.

Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190110/b9654a0d/attachment.sig>