On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:03:12PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Maxime Ripard >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:33:02AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: >> >> From: Jagan Teki <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Enable FIT_SIGNATURE for sunxi a64. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> >> Changes for v3: >> >> - Move imply outside block >> >> Changes for v2: >> >> - Use imply instead of select >> >> >> >> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 1 + >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> index 1fededd..05e2d47 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ config MACH_SUN50I >> >> select SUNXI_DRAM_DW_32BIT >> >> select FIT >> >> select SPL_LOAD_FIT >> >> + imply FIT_SIGNATURE >> > >> > I'm really not sure we should force it by default. How much code size >> > is it adding? >> >> Why we need to consider u-boot size? (because it may cross the loader2 size?) >> Here is the delta of u-boot elf > > The same reason than anything else on our arm64 builds lately: we have > a u-boot binary too big for the size compared to our environment offset.
Was that the env size is the show-stopper for adding new feature? since U-Boot proper runs on DRAM env's are those can be update, I'm not saying based on this FIT in general for new features. thanks! -- Jagan Teki Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer Hyderabad, India. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
