[PATCH 01/17] fs: boot: Update fs_read_alloc() to use abuf

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 06:42, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:37:55PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
>
> > Using an abuf for this function simplifies returning the size and also
> > makes it easier to free memory afterwards. Update the API and callers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> >  boot/bootmeth-uclass.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> >  fs/fs.c                | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> >  include/fs.h           |  8 +++++---
> >  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> So we grow platforms by ~200 bytes:
>             sama7g54_curiosity_nandflash: all +204 text +204
>                u-boot: add: 6/0, grow: 2/0 bytes: 204/0 (204)
>                  function                                   old     new   delta
>                  abuf_realloc                                 -      76     +76
>                  abuf_uninit_move                             -      42     +42
>                  memdup                                       -      28     +28
>                  abuf_uninit                                  -      24     +24
>                  fs_read_alloc                               96     106     +10
>                  fs_load_alloc                              114     124     +10
>                  abuf_init                                    -      10     +10
>                  abuf_addr                                    -       4      +4
>
> To move away from standard buffer usage and unwinding to move to
> something homegrown instead. I am not a fan of growing using abuf here.
> When it was introduced in:
>
> commit 67bc59df05331eaac56cd0a00219d1386130aee2
> Author: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> Date:   Sat Sep 25 07:03:07 2021 -0600
>
>     Add support for an owned buffer
>
> It sounded like something for some special cases. Not something to be
> used everywhere to be different.

>From what I can tell this is a one-off hit that I believe is worth
taking at some point. However I haven't seen a code-size reduction
yet, so I can understand your reluctance.

Regards,
Simon