[U-Boot] Maximum size of u-boot.imx for TBS2910 board

Marek Vasut
2019-11-22T01:27:16Z

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 wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 larger
>>>>>>> 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=0x60000 be enlarged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many i.MX6 defconfigs use CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0xC0000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The nature of these boards (aimed at end users) means that we just do
>>>>>> not want to / cannot really move the stored environment.Â  Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Another possibility would be to reduce the image size by using
>>>>> CONFIG_REGEX=n which should be fine for a board with only one supported
>>>>> network interface.
>>>>
>>>> But the board was fine before your patchset got applied and this is just
>>>> a workaround for added bloat, which reduces functionality. I dislike
>>>> 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 particular
>> functionality before, and I would say that a board should stay at least
>> 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.

>>> I believe
>>> the specific changes in question that once again push this board over
>>> fall in to that grey area. Whatever size-trimming the board maintainer
>>> is fine with next is fine with me, but needs to get ack'd by someone.
>>
>> 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 problems.