On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:11:06PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: > [...] > > On Friday 10 March 2017 11:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >> Yes, I agree that initial DT layout of 512K may not have been good > >> design, but it would be good to have an agreeable way of fixing up MTD > >> partitions when there is overflow. So, is fdt_fixup_mtdparts() preferred > >> approach? > > You make a good point about fdt_fixup_mtdparts() being non-trivial to > > have happen correctly in all cases above, so OK, lets put that aside. > > I'll also accept that previous best wisdom of not shoving tons of stuff > > into the cmdline, rather than passing it in the device tree, isn't > > correct anymore. > > > > But the big, un-tackled problem is that the old DT layout is failing > > because we're constantly increasing the number of full linux DTB files > > we're including in an image and thus increasing the size of our blob > > every time. We need to stop and think and maybe design things > > differently. Perhaps it's time for more platforms to have a spot on > > their storage where the DT is supposed to be, and we only use a fall > > back one that's included in U-Boot if it's not found? Franklin already > > posted a patch to have something kind-of similar be able to happen > > (which is to say, go from a generic DTB to the correct-for-the-HW one). > > I agree that DTB files are making u-boot image bulky. But it does not > seem to be problem due to addition of DT alone. For example SPI boot > image on K2 platform is two stage SPL+U-Boot combined into one single > image u-boot-spi.gph which is about 555K. General boot image u-boot.bin > is about 491K and u-boot-nodtb.bin is 432K. So even w/o dtbs SPI image > may overflow and its because of new code/framework changes.
Which platform exactly? I don't see anything today that's quite that large. And can we not move towards the "normal" method of SPL loading the u-boot.img (or FIT) from? I guess the current architecture here is confusing me. Regardless, I still see the DT problem as the bigger one long term, and dra7xx shows that. And I agree we need to re-size how the flash is partitioned. > There is similar issue with dra7xx where flash partition for SPL is > running out due to addition of new code. The DRA flash partition is, and should be fine because we have the ROM-mandated limits and don't need to include U-Boot with the SPL image. The main U-Boot image however is growing and that is a DTB problem. The difference here between -nodtb and the .img (FIT) with all of the DTBs is over 300KiB. And that's mostly linear growth when compared with the single-DTB case. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
