[U-Boot] Please pull u-boot-dm

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 19 May 2016 at 10:02, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:41:05AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On 19 May 2016 at 06:09, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:46:53AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Tom,
>> >>
>> >> This includes a refinement of the GPIO interface, soft SPI fixes,
>> >> driver model block-device support (and a legacy driver for
>> >> non-driver-model code) and a few other things. The changes are fairly
>> >> major so I'd like to get the maximum possible test window.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The following changes since commit aeaec0e682f45b9e0c62c522fafea353931f73ed:
>> >>
>> >>   Prepare v2016.05 (2016-05-16 10:40:32 -0400)
>> >>
>> >> are available in the git repository at:
>> >>
>> >>   git://git.denx.de/u-boot-dm.git
>> >>
>> >> for you to fetch changes up to 341392dd115f1385c31bb0b034ec15f542730e30:
>> >>
>> >>   dm: mmc: test: Add tests for MMC (2016-05-17 09:54:43 -0600)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
>> >
>> > But please note that this is starting to push some boards to or over the
>> > SPL edge such as Cubietruck so we need to look into some waste areas
>> > again.  Adding Hans in case there's also stuff we could simply be
>> > dropping out of SPL but aren't today.
>>
>> Yes I saw that but the increase was much larger than it should have
>> been. I meant to try it with the bug-fixed gcc and see if the increase
>> was smaller. It does unfortunately add a few hundred bytes of code. I
>> believe it might be possible to reduce this but I haven't yet figured
>> out how.
>
> I've been happy when I can use gcc-6.x for all the free cost savings but
> current Debian tools (and current Fedora, and current any other big
> distro) toolchains matter too.  You can also see the size growth (but
> not to fatal proportions) on CHIP or warp7 or MSI_Primo73

I took a look at those three. There was a big increase with CHIP on
'sunxi: Enable USB host in CHIP defconfig'. But other than that I see
the expected 300-byte increase due to the block device change.

I'm going to see what I can do about that, but from what I can tell
it's no worse than I thought.

Regards,
Simon