[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[stefano babic]

Hallo Soeren,

after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:

       arm:  +   tbs2910
+u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
+  limit:  392192 bytes
+  actual: 396288 bytes
+  excess: 4096 bytes

Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
what is your preferred way.

Best regards,
Stefano Babic


-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[Soeren Moch]

Hi Stefano,

On 14.04.19 11:52, stefano babic wrote:
> Hallo Soeren,
>
> after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
> buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:
>
>        arm:  +   tbs2910
> +u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
> +  limit:  392192 bytes
> +  actual: 396288 bytes
> +  excess: 4096 bytes
>
> Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
> board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
> what is your preferred way.
>
Hm, the full name of this board is "TBS2910 Matrix ARM mini PC", so it
is supposed to provide a full PC environment. It supports booting from
SATA, and such disk may as well be partitioned with EFI. It is really
terrible to drop user visible features, just to support a new "driver
model" that is supposed to ease life for developers, but in fact is much
work and a real pain for maintainers of existing boards, and brings
exactly nothing for the board's users.

So much for that. Now to your question.

Would be OK for me to drop CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION for now since it is more
important to get this series merged, because other boards also depend on
the SATA patches. We can readd EFI_PARTITION support later. For sure
there will be more patches in this development cycle.
But if you can wait a few hours, I will look for a better solution, or
send a formal patch for this CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION removal.

Thanks,
Soeren

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[Stefano Babic]

Hi Soeren,

On 14/04/19 12:46, Soeren Moch wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 14.04.19 11:52, stefano babic wrote:
>> Hallo Soeren,
>>
>> after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
>> buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:
>>
>>        arm:  +   tbs2910
>> +u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
>> +  limit:  392192 bytes
>> +  actual: 396288 bytes
>> +  excess: 4096 bytes
>>
>> Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
>> board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
>> what is your preferred way.
>>
> Hm, the full name of this board is "TBS2910 Matrix ARM mini PC", so it
> is supposed to provide a full PC environment. It supports booting from
> SATA, and such disk may as well be partitioned with EFI. It is really
> terrible to drop user visible features, just to support a new "driver
> model" that is supposed to ease life for developers, but in fact is much
> work and a real pain for maintainers of existing boards, and brings
> exactly nothing for the board's users.

I have explained my concerns in the past about footprint, too, but there
is nothing I can do. This is the way we have to go on and we have to
find solutions.

> 
> So much for that. Now to your question.
> 
> Would be OK for me to drop CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION for now since it is more
> important to get this series merged, because other boards also depend on
> the SATA patches. We can readd EFI_PARTITION support later. For sure
> there will be more patches in this development cycle.
> But if you can wait a few hours, I will look for a better solution, or
> send a formal patch for this CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION removal.

Today is Sunday, I have also not expected you was fast to answer.... ;-)

It is also fine for me to wait until tomorrow. I just want to sent PR to
Tom as soon as possible, because there are many developers waiting for
the merge from -next. tbs2910 is the only board with issues from Travis,
and I can confirm that it is still ok on u-boot-imx, next. Something new
is slipped down between 2019.rc4 and 2019.04 and at the end had
increased again the footprint.

Thanks for checking this,

Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[Sören Moch]

Hi Stefano,

On 14.04.19 13:24, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Soeren,
>
> On 14/04/19 12:46, Soeren Moch wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 14.04.19 11:52, stefano babic wrote:
>>> Hallo Soeren,
>>>
>>> after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
>>> buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:
>>>
>>>        arm:  +   tbs2910
>>> +u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
>>> +  limit:  392192 bytes
>>> +  actual: 396288 bytes
>>> +  excess: 4096 bytes
>>>
>>> Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
>>> board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
>>> what is your preferred way.
>>>
>> Hm, the full name of this board is "TBS2910 Matrix ARM mini PC", so it
>> is supposed to provide a full PC environment. It supports booting from
>> SATA, and such disk may as well be partitioned with EFI. It is really
>> terrible to drop user visible features, just to support a new "driver
>> model" that is supposed to ease life for developers, but in fact is much
>> work and a real pain for maintainers of existing boards, and brings
>> exactly nothing for the board's users.
> I have explained my concerns in the past about footprint, too, but there
> is nothing I can do.
I know, therefore I cc'd Tom.
> This is the way we have to go on and we have to
> find solutions.
>
>> So much for that. Now to your question.
>>
>> Would be OK for me to drop CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION for now since it is more
>> important to get this series merged, because other boards also depend on
>> the SATA patches. We can readd EFI_PARTITION support later. For sure
>> there will be more patches in this development cycle.
>> But if you can wait a few hours, I will look for a better solution, or
>> send a formal patch for this CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION removal.
> Today is Sunday, I have also not expected you was fast to answer.... ;-)
>
> It is also fine for me to wait until tomorrow.
OK, I will send a patch for that.

Regards,
Soeren
> I just want to sent PR to
> Tom as soon as possible, because there are many developers waiting for
> the merge from -next. tbs2910 is the only board with issues from Travis,
> and I can confirm that it is still ok on u-boot-imx, next. Something new
> is slipped down between 2019.rc4 and 2019.04 and at the end had
> increased again the footprint.
>
> Thanks for checking this,
>
> Stefano Babic
>

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:46:25PM +0200, Soeren Moch wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 14.04.19 11:52, stefano babic wrote:
> > Hallo Soeren,
> >
> > after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
> > buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:
> >
> >        arm:  +   tbs2910
> > +u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
> > +  limit:  392192 bytes
> > +  actual: 396288 bytes
> > +  excess: 4096 bytes
> >
> > Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
> > board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
> > what is your preferred way.
> >
> Hm, the full name of this board is "TBS2910 Matrix ARM mini PC", so it
> is supposed to provide a full PC environment. It supports booting from
> SATA, and such disk may as well be partitioned with EFI. It is really
> terrible to drop user visible features, just to support a new "driver
> model" that is supposed to ease life for developers, but in fact is much
> work and a real pain for maintainers of existing boards, and brings
> exactly nothing for the board's users.
> 
> So much for that. Now to your question.
> 
> Would be OK for me to drop CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION for now since it is more
> important to get this series merged, because other boards also depend on
> the SATA patches. We can readd EFI_PARTITION support later. For sure
> there will be more patches in this development cycle.
> But if you can wait a few hours, I will look for a better solution, or
> send a formal patch for this CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION removal.

Now that I'm back from vacation, I do want to chime in here.  So, yes,
this presents a difficult challenge.  I don't want to encourage people
to take out functionality just to make the binary fit.  And I assume the
binary size limit is so that we don't overwrite something else, so we
can't just grow it either.  So what options do we have?  Taking out
CONFIG_DM_WARN and CONFIG_MMC_VERBOSE gives us about 2KB.  Changing the
loglevel from 4 to 3 saves another 2KB.  Dropping the memtest command
(which is not helpful and discouraged) gives another 1KB.

But these are also, well, stopgaps.  Is it all going to be worth it?
Well, I hope so.  We can for example gain another 1KB back by disabling
block cache, which does improve read speed from filesystems and thus
something end users see.  But it could have been written without DM,
it's just a new feature and "carrot" to move to DM.

I don't even see any obvious-to-me cases of including big hunks of data
that should be dropped, so that brings us to maybe-not-used
functionality like bootelf/bootvx/nfs and so on.  Which I don't like.

So, I'm trying to keep a harder still eye on size growth when pulling in
functionality.  And I kinda wish LTO was easier to bring in as that
might really save us some space.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190422/59fa80df/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] tbs2910 not buildable

[Soeren Moch]

On 23.04.19 01:19, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 12:46:25PM +0200, Soeren Moch wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 14.04.19 11:52, stefano babic wrote:
>>> Hallo Soeren,
>>>
>>> after pulling from Tom and merging u-boot-imx, - next, your board is not
>>> buildable anymore. Better: it is buildable, but size exceeds:
>>>
>>>        arm:  +   tbs2910
>>> +u-boot.imx exceeds file size limit:
>>> +  limit:  392192 bytes
>>> +  actual: 396288 bytes
>>> +  excess: 4096 bytes
>>>
>>> Just dropping CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION (I supposed EFI is not used on this
>>> board), solves the issue. I can do myself in this way or let me know
>>> what is your preferred way.
>>>
>> Hm, the full name of this board is "TBS2910 Matrix ARM mini PC", so it
>> is supposed to provide a full PC environment. It supports booting from
>> SATA, and such disk may as well be partitioned with EFI. It is really
>> terrible to drop user visible features, just to support a new "driver
>> model" that is supposed to ease life for developers, but in fact is much
>> work and a real pain for maintainers of existing boards, and brings
>> exactly nothing for the board's users.
>>
>> So much for that. Now to your question.
>>
>> Would be OK for me to drop CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION for now since it is more
>> important to get this series merged, because other boards also depend on
>> the SATA patches. We can readd EFI_PARTITION support later. For sure
>> there will be more patches in this development cycle.
>> But if you can wait a few hours, I will look for a better solution, or
>> send a formal patch for this CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION removal.
> Now that I'm back from vacation, I do want to chime in here.  So, yes,
> this presents a difficult challenge.  I don't want to encourage people
> to take out functionality just to make the binary fit.  And I assume the
> binary size limit is so that we don't overwrite something else, so we
> can't just grow it either.  So what options do we have?  Taking out
> CONFIG_DM_WARN and CONFIG_MMC_VERBOSE gives us about 2KB.  Changing the
> loglevel from 4 to 3 saves another 2KB.  Dropping the memtest command
> (which is not helpful and discouraged) gives another 1KB.
>
> But these are also, well, stopgaps.  Is it all going to be worth it?
> Well, I hope so.  We can for example gain another 1KB back by disabling
> block cache, which does improve read speed from filesystems and thus
> something end users see.  But it could have been written without DM,
> it's just a new feature and "carrot" to move to DM.
>
> I don't even see any obvious-to-me cases of including big hunks of data
> that should be dropped, so that brings us to maybe-not-used
> functionality like bootelf/bootvx/nfs and so on.  Which I don't like.
>
> So, I'm trying to keep a harder still eye on size growth when pulling in
> functionality.  And I kinda wish LTO was easier to bring in as that
> might really save us some space.
>
Thanks, Tom, for your additional suggestions.
Disabling CMD_FDT in tbs2910_defconfig did the trick for this round, see
[1].

Regards,
Soeren

[1]
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=e0627f77f55ea8d606cd4b0902bc47ffaad220d0