Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synchronize DTC to 1.7.2

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 12:23:30AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 11/13/25 7:49 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> Hello Tom,
> 
> > > CI does show that no boards went oversize . If there is some growth on
> > > existing devices, maybe we can shrink that, but maintaining obsolete DTC
> > > code base going forward and picking random updates into it, that will only
> > > lead to increasing maintenance pain, so I don't want to do that.
> > 
> > Yeah, it's not an easy spot. But I'm really not happy with growing main
> > U-Boot almost everywhere by 2KiB - 4KiB, and SPL by ~512 bytes or more
> > just to keep up. I do see that integratorcp_cm1136 barely grows at all,
> > so maybe there's something that can be done more widely and just wasn't
> > clear at first. m68k only grows an average of 500 bytes and MIPS is
> > ~1KiB. PowerPC grows a lot. RISC-V a little.
> I suspect this might have to do with DTO support. The imx8mp_dhcom do use
> DTOs and the fdt_overlay.c code grew a lot.
> 
> I also found out that if I patch out can_assume() and replace it with plain
> 1 , then the size drops by 1-2 kiB, but that's probably not what we want to
> do.

I'm not sure, maybe we do? Or maybe we need to look and have *one* place
that confirms correct alignment and either fixes/complains, and then
every follow-up location doesn't need to perform that (or possibly many
other as well) validation checks. My impression from when I looked at
the code last, a few year ago, was that it was designed with "validate
with most? every? function" and we would be happy enough with "validate
once".

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]