[U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-net

From: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-net
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:18:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160105131828.GI4093@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEUhbmUjT-xKbmp0DSSD42VbGXHDs=qU_fUwC+BCn3HvWSG_Eg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 12:18:35PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 09:48:08PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> >> Hi Dirk,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Dirk Eibach <dirk.eibach@gdsys.cc> wrote:
> >> > Hi Bin,
> >> >
> >> >> ...
> >> >> The simple fix is to change change iocon to a more larger size since
> >> >> it has a 64MB flash. Dirk, can you please comment?
> >> >
> >> > The problem is the flash partition layout, coming from a time where
> >> > u-boot was an order of magnitude smaller :)
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess so.
> >>
> >> > Updating partition layout in tens of thousands of devices in the field
> >> > is not an option for us.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I suspect 256KB won't fit anyway, if trying to make use of these new
> >> U-Boot features,eg: using driver model adds some more footprints too.
> >> So in your deployment, you just upgrade those devices in the field to
> >> latest U-Boot (new version) but not changing partition layout, for fix
> >> only?
> >
> > I'm not convinced that we shouldn't be able to be useful in 256KB.
> > Sure, a kitchen-sink EVM + config will be large but iocon is a defined
> > production type config.  If we can't make this work, I'm going to be
> > worried.  I've already gotten some aside pokes about making U-Boot
> > shrink down when you turn stuff off.
> >
> > I want to cycle back to saying that we need to look at ways to
> > work-around the gcc issue that's keeping a bunch of unused strings in
> > the resulting binary.
> 
> So, what's our best way to do with this PR? I am worried that since
> this iocon board is already at an edge, any ramdom bug fix (to common
> codes) in the future could be the next victim.

For this PR, I think we need to push the fdt patch in question out and
for the next release look at splitting up common/fdt_support.c into
logical chunks.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160105/362a3b49/attachment.sig>