On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 07:49:06AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:10:48PM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > > > > > Introduce another SIZE_CHECK macro for u-boot-with-spl.bin. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <p...@denx.de> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > Changes in v2: none > > > > > > Makefile | 7 +++++++ > > > common/spl/Kconfig | 7 +++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > So, for u-boot-with-spl.imx we use BOARD_SIZE_CHECK and > > CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT. I think for consistency it would be better to > > re-use that option here and expand the help text on > > CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT to note which build targets make use of it. > > Thanks for the feedback! I've tried that, but I have the following > issue: > - 402K for u-boot-nodtb.bin > - 152K for u-boot-lzma.img > - 191K for u-boot-with-spl.bin > > The end result, u-boot-with-spl.bin, meets the size restriction of 192K. > Nevertheless, an intermediary (uncompressed) artifact, u-boot-nodtb.bin, > causes the build to fail. > > > Instead of introducing a new Kconfig option, it should be fine to reuse > CONFIG_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT for u-boot-with-spl.bin. I'm not sure which way is > better. What do you think?
Ah, OK, I wasn't quite sure and it's unfortunate that the various size check options are all slightly differently named. Yes, if you can use SPL_SIZE_LIMIT here to catch the problem, that's the right one. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
