Re: Thoughts about U-boot binary size increase

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:20:49AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Dear Community,
> 
> I'd like to share with you some thoughts about growth of u-boot's
> binary size for SPL and u-boot proper.
> 
> Board: XEA
> SoC  : imx287 (still in active production)
> Problem: SPL size constrained to ~55 KiB (This cannot be exceeded). 
> 	 Board design constraints u-boot proper size to less than ~448
> 	 KiB
> 
> 
> When XEA was added (2019.07):
> 	- u-boot.sb (SPL): 37 KiB
> 	- u-boot.img 	 : 401 KiB
> 
> Now (2024.04):
> 	- u-boot.sb (SPL): 40 KiB
> 	- u-boot.img 	 : 427 KiB
> 
> (With a _lot_ of effort put to reduce the size)
> 
> Hence, the question - would it be possible to take more concern about
> the binary size growth?
> 
> Maybe CI could catch patches, which enable by default some features and
> the size is unintentionally increased?
> 
> I'm open for any feedback and thoughts on "stopping" the binary size
> increase.

I think that's pretty amazingly small growth for nearly 5 years of bug
fixes and feature enhancements that it's likely minor to make granular.
If LTO is not enabled on this platform you should be able to use
buildman to give you a "bloat" list from v2019.07 to v2024.04 and see if
anything sticks out as being something that can be addressed. But that
little growth seems pretty good to me at first glance.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]