[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 00/17] Convert p1_p2_rdb_pc to new spl

[Scott Wood]

On 09/24/2012 02:06:55 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:50:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On 09/21/2012 07:13:24 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:10PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is based on a merge of top-of-tree plus the 85xx tree and
> > >the spl
> > >> framework branch (it doesn't use the SPL framework code because
> > >of size
> > >> constraints, but I wanted to make sure there were no conflicts
> > >with it).
> > >>
> > >> Tested on P2020RDB-PC_NAND and P1021RDB-PC_36BIT_NAND.
> > >
> > >How close (or far) is this from using the framework due to size?
> > >And I
> > >will give the whole series a proper read and comment Monday.
> >
> > Configuring for P2020RDB-PC_NAND - Board: p1_p2_rdb_pc, Options:
> > P2020RDB,NAND
> >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> >  393179	  31912	 267088	 692179	  a8fd3	/tmp/u-boot//u-boot
> >    3612	    388	      0	   4000	    fa0	 
> /tmp/u-boot//spl/u-boot-spl
> >
> > --------------------- SUMMARY ----------------------------
> > Boards compiled: 1
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Size limit is 4096 bytes.
> 
> Right.  But that's with your changes yes?

Yes, pretty much the same as with the old nand_spl.

> Do you have the how-much for using the common framework was?
> Or just going (and I agree, it won't fit today) by the 96 bytes to  
> spare that a new framework won't fit?

The latter.  When I get to a board with IFC (which has an 8K limit),  
such as p1010rdb, I'll give it a try.

-Scott