----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Ellerman" <m...@ellerman.id.au>
> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpear...@raptorengineering.com>, "Segher Boessenkool"
> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
> Cc: "linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:23:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Add gpr1 and fpu save/restore functions
> Timothy Pearson <tpear...@raptorengineering.com> writes:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Segher Boessenkool" <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpear...@raptorengineering.com>
>>> Cc: "linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 12:23:22 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Add gpr1 and fpu save/restore functions
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 12:07:03PM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>>> > I have done it for *all* architectures some ten years ago. Never found
>>>> > any problem.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense, what I mean by invasive is that we'd need buy-in from the
>>>> other
>>>> maintainers across all of the affected architectures. Is that likely to
>>>> occur?
>>>
>>> I don't know. Here is my PowerPC-specific patch, it's a bit older, it
>>> might not apply cleanly anymore, the changes needed should be obvious
>>> though:
>>>
>>>
>>> === 8< ===
>>> commit f16dfa5257eb14549ce22243fb2b465615085134
>>> Author: Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> Date: Sat May 3 03:48:06 2008 +0200
>>>
>>> powerpc: Link vmlinux against libgcc.a
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
>>> index b7212b619c52..0a2fac6ffc1c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
>>> @@ -158,6 +158,9 @@ core-y +=
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/
>>> core-$(CONFIG_XMON) += arch/powerpc/xmon/
>>> core-$(CONFIG_KVM) += arch/powerpc/kvm/
>>>
>>> +LIBGCC := $(shell $(CC) $(KBUILD_CFLAGS) -print-libgcc-file-name)
>>> +libs-y += $(LIBGCC)
>>> +
>>> drivers-$(CONFIG_OPROFILE) += arch/powerpc/oprofile/
>>>
>>> # Default to zImage, override when needed
>>> === 8< ===
>>
>> OK. PowerPC maintainers, how would you prefer to handle this?
>
> I'll take the patch to add the functions for now. We can look into
> linking against libgcc as a future cleanup.
Sounds good.
>>>> > There are better options than -Os, fwiw. Some --param's give smaller
>>>> > *and* faster kernels. What exactly is best is heavily arch-dependent
>>>> > though (as well as dependent on the application code, the kernel code in
>>>> > this case) :-(
>>>>
>>>> I've been through this a few times, and -Os is the only option that makes
>>>> things (just barely) fit unfortunately.
>>>
>>> -O2 with appropriate inlining tuning beats -Os every day of the week,
>>> in my experience.
>>
>> On 6.6 it's 24MiB vs 40MiB, O2 vs. Os. :(
>
> What compiler/config etc. are you using for that?
It's the kernel config that buildroot generates for skiroot -- I think a lot of
the size difference is in some of the modules that we enable such as amdgpu,
but haven't dug too deeply. Once this firmware release is in beta (and
therefore published publicly) I'll send over a link to the configs.
Thanks!
