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

[Marek Behun]

On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:40:53 -0400
Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:56:41PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:00:31PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:  
> > > 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...  
> > 
> > Yeah, CI needs to keep passing, so if we need to disable
> > sandbox+clang+lto for now, OK.  
> 
> Ah, I see the problem now.  I've worked out a fix after looking at the
> Linux kernel a bit and I'll post something for us and upstream dtc as
> well.
> 

What do you mean? The problem is in dtc? I see 2 problems:
- one with DM test
- one with stack protector test