[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] board: tbs2910: Remove FIT support in defconfig to reduce u-boot size

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:00:13AM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Tom, Soeren,
> 
> On 09/01/19 23:39, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:01:37PM +0100, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >> Hi Soeren,
> >>
> >> On 08/01/19 12:03, Soeren Moch wrote:
> >>> Hi Stefano,
> >>>
> >>> On 08.01.19 11:24, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >>>> Hi Soeren,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/01/19 11:14, Soeren Moch wrote:
> >>>>> Stefano,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can you apply this for v2019.01? This is really a important fix to avoid
> >>>>>  environment and u-boot binary overwriting each other.
> >>>>> It is also a small local fix which cannot hurt anybody else.
> >>>> I will apply and I send a new PR. This is not the first fix in this
> >>>> direction, u-boot becomes pretty large, it is becoming a common problem.
> >>>>
> >>> Thank you very much.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, "in the good old days (tm)" there was much effort put into not
> >>> increasing the binary size for existing boards when adding new features.
> >>
> >> Right, fully agree.
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately this is not true anymore.
> >>
> >> I get in the same trouble with more as one project. A previous rule of
> >> thumb was to reserve 512KB to the bootloader because it was pretty
> >> unthinkable that bootloader could be larger. Mhmmhh....this remember me
> >> someone else who said that 640Kb is enough for everything.
> >>
> >> Anyway, as you noted, this is a big problem in field and it makes
> >> difficult an upgrade without returning back the device to factory, what
> >> nobody wants.
> > 
> > So, this is more on me, so I should probably explain a little, and point
> > at the biggest culprit too.  The biggest at times culprit and sometimes
> > controversial thing is that we default to the EFI subsystem being on by
> > default.  This is 50KiB on tbs2910.
> 
> I am not sure if we should point to EFI as responsible for the increased
> footprint or it is due to the sum of several components / factors. I
> just report my experience in last month : I had to port U-Boot for a
> customer from a not very old release (2017.01) to the current. 2017.01
> had already (apart of FIT support) all features the customer needed, but
> there are issues(NAND, UBI) and I kew that they were solved later.
> Processor was an old PowerPC 8308, a quite dead SOC. I have not changed
> a lot in board code, but of course I had to reconfigure a lot. At the
> end, everything worked but I was quite astonished about footprint. I had:
> 
> 2017.01	u-boot.bin 443452
> 2018.11 u-boot.bin 654684

I'm splitting my reply here into two emails.  This here concerns the
heck out of me.  But I don't see it on MPC8308RDB.  There I see:
   powerpc: (for 1/1 boards) all -124241.0 bss -131040.0 data -48.0 text +6847.0
            MPC8308RDB     : all -124241 bss -131040 data -48 text +6847
               u-boot: add: 108/-85, grow: 121/-49 bytes: 22672/-148318 (-125646)

And in terms of .bins:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 337400 Jan 10 09:37 /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/01_of_11922_g80d261881f93ee474d1c9188b5c2b5b42b0c4e6f_powerpc--T2080QDS--R/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin
-rwxrwxr-x 1 trini trini 345804 Jan 10 09:37 /tmp/MPC8308RDB/new/11922_of_11922_g0157013f4a4945bbdb70bb4d98d680e0845fd784_Prepare-v2018.11/MPC8308RDB/u-boot.bin

I am doing all of mpc83xx now to see if something else trips such a
large growth.

-- 
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/20190110/33f0911e/attachment.sig>