On 11/22/19 1:32 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:23:56AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/21/19 11:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 11/21/19 10:59 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>> On 11/21/19 9:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:09:29PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Soeren, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> when trying to add support for function key support in the USB keyboard >>>>>>> driver u-boot.imx for the TBS2910 surpassed the maximum size for >>>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/marex/u-boot-usb/builds/614059004 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you remember why on the TBS2910 board this size is limited to >>>>>>> 0x5fc00? Other i.MX6 boards like the Wandboard allow a much larger >>>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The limit is defined here: >>>>>>> include/configs/tbs2910.h:80: >>>>>>> #define CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT 392192 /* (CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET - 1024) */ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could the value CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0x60000 be enlarged? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many i.MX6 defconfigs use CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0xC0000. >>>>>> >>>>>> The nature of these boards (aimed at end users) means that we just do >>>>>> not want to / cannot really move the stored environment. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Another possibility would be to reduce the image size by using >>>>> CONFIG_REGEX=n which should be fine for a board with only one supported >>>>> network interface. >>>> >>>> But the board was fine before your patchset got applied and this is just >>>> a workaround for added bloat, which reduces functionality. I dislike >>>> trading functionality for bloat, sorry. >>> >>> One persons "bloat" is another persons "added functionality". >> >> It would seem this board did not suffer from the lack of this particular >> functionality before, and I would say that a board should stay at least >> as functional as it was when it was added. Replacing existing >> functionality with random unrelated new one makes no sense. > > Was it tho? I believe we're talking about supporting some additional > keys via USB keyboard. This board does in fact expect users to be at > the U-Boot prompt via USB keyboard.
How did you reach this conclusion ? It seems to be some sort of devkit. >>> I believe >>> the specific changes in question that once again push this board over >>> fall in to that grey area. Whatever size-trimming the board maintainer >>> is fine with next is fine with me, but needs to get ack'd by someone. >> >> Or, the other option is, make these new extra features configurable and >> disable them on this board. And so there should be no size problem. > > But that direction leads to saying every slight bit of functionality > requires a new Kconfig entry. Some levels of bugfixes as well. The other option is, we will sink in bloat and suffer endless size problems. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
