[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[Marek Vasut]

Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much,
lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com>
Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
---
 include/configs/mxs.h |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/

diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h
index a684166..161d89d 100644
--- a/include/configs/mxs.h
+++ b/include/configs/mxs.h
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
 #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT
 #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT	"=> "
 #endif
-#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	1024		/* Console I/O buffer size */
+#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	256		/* Console I/O buffer size */
 #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE	\
 	(CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16)
 						/* Print buffer size */
-- 
1.7.10.4

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[Stefano Babic]

Hi Marek,

On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much,
> lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com>
> Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
> ---
>  include/configs/mxs.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/
> 
> diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h
> index a684166..161d89d 100644
> --- a/include/configs/mxs.h
> +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h
> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
>  #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT
>  #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT	"=> "
>  #endif
> -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	1024		/* Console I/O buffer size */
> +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	256		/* Console I/O buffer size */
>  #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE	\
>  	(CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16)
>  						/* Print buffer size */
> 

I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the
console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on
the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are
quite long nowadays.

Best regards,
Stefano

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[Marek Vasut]

Hello Stefano,

I'm CCing Wolfgang,

> Hi Marek,
> 
> On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much,
> > lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> > Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com>
> > Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
> > ---
> > 
> >  include/configs/mxs.h |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h
> > index a684166..161d89d 100644
> > --- a/include/configs/mxs.h
> > +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h
> > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
> > 
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT
> >  #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT	"=> "
> >  #endif
> > 
> > -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	1024		/* Console I/O buffer size */
> > +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE	256		/* Console I/O buffer size */
> > 
> >  #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE	\
> >  
> >  	(CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16)
> >  	
> >  						/* Print buffer size */
> 
> I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the
> console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on
> the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are
> quite long nowadays.

True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are 
hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[Stefano Babic]

Hallo Marek,

On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote:

>> I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the
>> console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on
>> the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are
>> quite long nowadays.
> 
> True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are 
> hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.

I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided
or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I
presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to
save some bytes.

Best regards,
Stefano

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:
> Hallo Marek,
>
> On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
>>> I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the
>>> console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on
>>> the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are
>>> quite long nowadays.
>>
>> True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are
>> hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.
>
> I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided
> or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I
> presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to
> save some bytes.

I think this is more than enough to justify a bigger buffer.


--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750