From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Roese Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:35:29 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [U-Boot, V4, 10/13] spl: add support for alternative boot device In-Reply-To: <20151119221124.GM9551@bill-the-cat> References: <1446995514-26357-11-git-send-email-nikita@compulab.co.il> <20151118223320.GD8060@bill-the-cat> <20151119111939.GA32650@skynet> <564DB6B2.1050303@denx.de> <20151119221124.GM9551@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <564EBF31.5030001@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Tom, On 19.11.2015 23:11, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:46:58PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: >> On 19.11.2015 12:19, Nikita Kiryanov wrote: >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:33:20PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 05:11:51PM +0200, Nikita Kiryanov wrote: >>>> >>>>> Introduce spl_boot_list array, which defines a list of boot devices >>>>> that SPL will try before hanging. By default this list will consist >>>>> of only spl_boot_device(), but board_boot_order() can be overridden >>>>> by board code to populate the array with custom values. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Kiryanov >>>>> Cc: Igor Grinberg >>>>> Cc: Tom Rini >>>>> Cc: Simon Glass >>>>> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini >>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass >>>> >>>> So, a problem with this patch is that we push the x600 board, which is >>>> an 8KiB SPL target, over the line. I feel like maybe we need a >>>> follow-up patch that makes announcing depend not on libcommon (which >>>> x600 needs) but something else to know that there's a reason to >>>> announce. >>> >>> Based on the content of your reply I'm guessing you're referring to the >>> next patch, not this one. >>> >>> I suppose that announcing can be made into an optional feature. However, >>> I also think that since printing is an optional feature that can greatly >>> increase binary size, it shouldn't be coupled with other, often >>> non-optional libcommon features the way it currently is via >>> CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT. The best fix in my opinion would be to >>> implement a way to exclude printing support from SPL even if libcommon >>> is included (CONFIG_SPL_SILENT that replaces printfs with empty stubs?). >>> >>> This will also make it possible to remove all those #ifdef >>> CONFIG_SPL_LIBCOMMON_SUPPORT checks that appear all over the SPL code. >> >> I think that my recently posted tiny-printf patches: >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545034/ >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545033/ >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545036/ >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545035/ >> >> can solve this size issue on x600 (and perhaps other) board. > > If you can see if x600 builds again in mainline that would be good :) Yes, I can confirm, that build with the tiny-printf fixes the build issue on x600. So once you add this tiny-printf patchset, I'll send a patch to move x600 over to use this smaller version. Thanks, Stefan