From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:53:57 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] Maximum size of u-boot.imx for TBS2910 board In-Reply-To: References: <20191121201253.GN971@bill-the-cat> <5e69c39f-a36a-bcd3-8020-e752ded84166@gmx.de> <3647be08-dd89-ba9a-51a7-09cd08176816@denx.de> <20191121224514.GS971@bill-the-cat> <64fabb24-ccbc-726e-54b7-062b77177440@denx.de> <20191122003259.GX971@bill-the-cat> <8eec4486-3147-fee1-2982-a747c7a04371@denx.de> <20191122013015.GY971@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20191122025357.GA971@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:38:51AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/22/19 2:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:27:16AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 11/22/19 1:32 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:23:56AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> On 11/21/19 11:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/21/19 10:59 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>>>>>> On 11/21/19 9:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:09:29PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wr= ote: > >>>>>>>>> Hello Soeren, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> when trying to add support for function key support in the USB = keyboard > >>>>>>>>> driver u-boot.imx for the TBS2910 surpassed the maximum size for > >>>>>>>>> u-boot.imx. > >>>>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/marex/u-boot-usb/builds/614059004 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you remember why on the TBS2910 board this size is limited to > >>>>>>>>> 0x5fc00? Other i.MX6 boards like the Wandboard allow a much lar= ger > >>>>>>>>> u-boot.imx. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The limit is defined here: > >>>>>>>>> include/configs/tbs2910.h:80: > >>>>>>>>> #define CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT 392192 /* (CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET - = 1024) */ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Could the value CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=3D0x60000 be enlarged? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Many i.MX6 defconfigs use CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=3D0xC0000. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The nature of these boards (aimed at end users) means that we ju= st do > >>>>>>>> not want to / cannot really move the stored environment.=C2=A0 T= hanks! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Another possibility would be to reduce the image size by using > >>>>>>> CONFIG_REGEX=3Dn which should be fine for a board with only one s= upported > >>>>>>> network interface. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But the board was fine before your patchset got applied and this i= s just > >>>>>> a workaround for added bloat, which reduces functionality. I disli= ke > >>>>>> trading functionality for bloat, sorry. > >>>>> > >>>>> One persons "bloat" is another persons "added functionality". > >>>> > >>>> It would seem this board did not suffer from the lack of this partic= ular > >>>> functionality before, and I would say that a board should stay at le= ast > >>>> as functional as it was when it was added. Replacing existing > >>>> functionality with random unrelated new one makes no sense. > >>> > >>> Was it tho? I believe we're talking about supporting some additional > >>> keys via USB keyboard. This board does in fact expect users to be at > >>> the U-Boot prompt via USB keyboard. > >> > >> How did you reach this conclusion ? It seems to be some sort of devkit. > >=20 > > It came up in one of the previous threads about this board and what we > > can / cannot do about the size constraint and the board maintainers > > unhappiness about the overall size growth and broken releases (until > > size growth became a link error on the platform). >=20 > Link please ? It sounds relevant to this thread too. https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-April/365297.html > >>>>> I believe > >>>>> the specific changes in question that once again push this board ov= er > >>>>> fall in to that grey area. Whatever size-trimming the board mainta= iner > >>>>> is fine with next is fine with me, but needs to get ack'd by someon= e. > >>>> > >>>> Or, the other option is, make these new extra features configurable = and > >>>> disable them on this board. And so there should be no size problem. > >>> > >>> But that direction leads to saying every slight bit of functionality > >>> requires a new Kconfig entry. Some levels of bugfixes as well. > >> > >> The other option is, we will sink in bloat and suffer endless size pro= blems. > >=20 > > Yes, it is a hard balancing act. Stepping back, perhaps a "minimal" or > > "complete" choice for USB HID devices would make sense and allow us > > further areas to reduce size, on the minimal portion. >=20 > Or maybe there is a way to help compiler optimize that USB key code > handling better. Perhaps. But my point is that every little functional change or enhancement does not need a Kconfig option. --=20 Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: