[PATCH u-boot v4 36/36] ARM: enable LTO for some boards

[Marek Behún]

On Fri, 21 May 2021 10:11:47 -0400
Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:56:29PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:25 AM Marek Behún <marek.behun at nic.cz>
> > wrote:  
> > >
> > > Enable LTO for some boards that were tested by people on U-Boot
> > > Mailing List.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <marek.behun at nic.cz>
> > > Tested-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
> > > Tested-by: Pali Rohár <pali at kernel.org>
> > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey at gateworks.com>  
> > 
> > Since the imx8mm beacon boards and the imx8mm venice board both show
> > promise, does it make sense to 'imply' the LTO for anything enabling
> > imx8mm?
> > Same thing for the various omap3 boards, and potentially the renesas
> > RZ/G2 boards.  I know Tom went through to remove a bunch of boards
> > that were never converted to DM.  Most of the boards remaining
> > boards have minimal board files and most of code is common to other
> > boards in the same platforms.
> > 
> > I have an l138_lcdk that I can use to test which I expect to be
> > similar to the da850evm.  
> 
> As much as I am eager to move everything, quickly, over to LTO by
> default, I think the problems that we've seen thus far show it's best
> to really make it an explicit enable per board at least for the first
> release or two.  Once we've hopefully gotten more boards tested and
> enabled we can see what makes sense for defaults, give a release worth
> of heads up, and then go.

Tom, are there some other issues aside from the one failing CI scenario
(sandbox_clang)? Would you be willing to merge this if I resolved that
one fail by disabling LTO for that scenario (until I resolve it)? It
would help me not having to maintain all 30+ patches...

Marek