[PATHv11 33/43] configs/am335x_evm_defconfig: inc SPL size

[Maxim Uvarov]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 22:31, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:52:50PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:32 PM Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 20:08, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:06:23PM +0600, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 19:08, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 06:57:16PM +0600, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Increase allowed binary size to fit lwip code.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uvarov at linaro.org>
> > >> > > > ---
> > >> > > >  configs/am335x_evm_defconfig | 1 +
> > >> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > diff --git a/configs/am335x_evm_defconfig
> b/configs/am335x_evm_defconfig
> > >> > > > index f048e60f7f..9fd608bd76 100644
> > >> > > > --- a/configs/am335x_evm_defconfig
> > >> > > > +++ b/configs/am335x_evm_defconfig
> > >> > > > @@ -124,3 +124,4 @@ CONFIG_WDT=y
> > >> > > >  CONFIG_DYNAMIC_CRC_TABLE=y
> > >> > > >  CONFIG_RSA=y
> > >> > > >  CONFIG_LZO=y
> > >> > > > +CONFIG_SPL_MAX_SIZE=0x29000
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As probably a problem for other platforms you made this change on
> too,
> > >> > > you can't do this. The link limit is here because that's the
> limit the
> > >> > > hardware (and ROM) imposes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You might need to either:
> > >> > > - Figure out how to make lwip even tinier for the SPL case
> > >> > > - Limit the old network stack to just for SPL, and a later task
> is to
> > >> > >   reduce what's in the old stack to just what's also needed
> within SPL.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > Thanks Tom. All these size changes need to be reviewed.  Some of
> them are
> > >> > ok, I think like for x86 or qemu virt, but some of them might not
> work.
> > >> >
> > >> > Question - Do we need networking inside SPL rather than in the main
> binary?
> > >> > Is it a real use case?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, the device supports loading SPL, and then SPL loading U-Boot both
> > >> over USB RNDIS as well as regular physical ethernet.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Tom
> > >
> > >
> > > That looks like not a production use case. USB + NET + drivers + EXT4
> + NAND + MTD and everything else and trying to fit into SPL.
> > > With enabling LTO I still need 4k (without dropping current code).
> From one point it's too synthetic use case here and might be a historical
> > > limitation which we will not see on future boards. From the other
> point it will be good to not break it somehow....
> >
> > Does this still include the old network code?
> >
> > Also I wonder if we can have a paired down SPL_LWIP option that
> > removes things like PXE and HTTP/wget because none of those would be
> > used in the SPL use case as they're all brand new.
>
> To be clear, I am fine with either "old network stack only for SPL" or
> "figure out how to pair down lwip to just SPL features". In fact having
> said that, the first thing I would suggest is to turn off LTO as it
> makes reading the linker map file harder, increase the size limit for
> this platform, and take a look at what's being linked in and not
> discarded in SPL, for networking, in spl/u-boot-spl.map. Maybe the
> answer is that we just need to be more careful about using
> IS_ENABLED/CONFIG_IS_ENABLED (and obj-$(CONFIG_$(SPL_)FOO)) in the lwip
> series.
>
> --
> Tom
>

Yea. If I disable TCP then we get the right size for this board. So for SPL
I think to build without TCP so that ping, dhcp and tftp will still work.
For normal binary TCP will be enabled. For other boards with limits I think
also to disable TCP for now.

BR,
Maxim.