[PATCH v2 2/7] common: binman: Calling initr_binman() when BINMAN_FDT

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 at 08:32, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 04:26:15PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/6/24 20:20, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 03:18, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Calling empty function when BINMAN_FDT is adding +64B for nothing which is
> > > > not helping on size sensitive configurations as Xilinx mini configurations.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - new patch
> > > >
> > > >  From my perspective there is no reason to call empty function. It is just
> > > > increase footprint for nothing and we are not far from that limit now.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >   common/board_r.c | 7 +++----
> > > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > This is a bit odd, though. Do you have LTO enabled?
> > >
> >
> > yes LTO is enabled. And there are other candidates like this.
> > Is LTO able to fix function arrays which is calling empty function?
> >
> > (without this patch)
> >
> > 00000000fffc0eb4 <initr_of_live>:
> >     fffc0eb4:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0eb8:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ebc <initr_dm_devices>:
> >     fffc0ebc:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ec0:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ec4 <initr_bootstage>:
> >     fffc0ec4:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ec8:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ecc <power_init_board>:
> >     fffc0ecc:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ed0:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ed4 <initr_announce>:
> >     fffc0ed4:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ed8:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0edc <initr_binman>:
> >     fffc0edc:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ee0:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ee4 <initr_status_led>:
> >     fffc0ee4:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ee8:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0eec <initr_boot_led_blink>:
> >     fffc0eec:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ef0:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0ef4 <initr_boot_led_on>:
> >     fffc0ef4:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0ef8:   d65f03c0        ret
> >
> > 00000000fffc0efc <initr_lmb>:
> >     fffc0efc:   52800000        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> >     fffc0f00:   d65f03c0        ret
>
> No, but maybe Simon would prefer if we marked all of the could-be-empty
> functions as __maybe_unused and did:
>         CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BINMAN_FDT, initr_binman),
> etc in the list instead?

Yes that looks better.

Michal, see also [1] in case you can work out why it 'stopped
working'. I could have sworn inlining the function was a win when it
was applied, but no amount of toolchain juggling could make it be a
win when I came back to it later.

Regards,
SImon

[1] e7f59dea880 Revert "initcall: Move to inline function"