Kim Phillips wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:44:18 -0800 (PST) > Ron Madrid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This would allow for more board specific nand_spl boot code. >> Would something like this be allowed or am I barking up the >> wrong tree? > > I'd rather we find stuff that can be ifdeffed out or moved elsewhere -
That's great if it's possible, but it's a very tight image and we're currently wasting 1/16 of it. > the moment we move something in there, someone will find the need to > enhance and grow whatever moved there. So put something in there that is unlikely to grow, and if it does grow, swap it with something else. I think you've gotten spoiled by the lack of resource constraints. :-) > what was the 4.2 toolchain doing differently than the 4.1 toolchain? > maybe that's an area worth looking into. Agreed, code size regressions with -Os should warrant a bug report. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
