[PATCH v2 1/3] Image size checks: Remove HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT

[Philip Oberfichtner]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 05:24:21PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 01:15:45AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 8/7/25 10:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 09:41:34PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On 8/7/25 6:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/7/25 12:24 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > > > > > > CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT is obsolete, if we interpret the value
> > > > > > > "zero" as "unlimited".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This sentence makes no sense. Is the variable not obsolete if its value is
> > > > > > non-zero ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is phrased oddly, yes. How about:
> > > > > By making the code treat a size limit of 0 as unlimited we no longer
> > > > > need to guard asking about having a size limit on the platform.
> > > > 
> > > > 0 shouldn't mean unlimited, that is just fragile ...
> > > 
> > > That's a standard unix thing? ulimit -c 0 is unlimited.
> > 
> > This is a really bad argument, because then the counter-argument is, that
> > size = 0 is also a valid size and it shouldn't be conflated with SIZE_LIMIT
> > validity.
> > 
> > My take on this is, don't conflate size-limit "enabled/disabled" with
> > size-limit "value" , these are two separate config options. Mixing them is
> > not helping.
> 
> I still think it's fine, but it's not worth arguing further over, and we
> can just make sure to gate all of the symbols rather than 0-is-disabled.

The idea of treating a size limit of zero as unlimited has been common
practice in mainline U-Boot since 2019, where CONFIG_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT has
been introduced. The same logic has later been applied to TPL and VPL
size limits.

If we want to consistently stick to the HAS_*_SIZE_LIMIT approach, we'd
have to introduce four extra Kconfig options alongside
HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT:

	CONFIG_HAS_UBOOT_WITH_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
	CONFIG_HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
	CONFIG_HAS_TPL_SIZE_LIMIT
	CONFIG_HAS_VPL_SIZE_LIMIT


Furthermore, the extra lines of code in the toplevel Makefile, which
could otherwise be removed:

	ifneq ($(CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT),)
	BOARD_SIZE_CHECK= @ $(call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT))
	else
	BOARD_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif

	ifneq ($(CONFIG_HAS_UBOOT_WITH_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT),0x0)
	UBOOT_WITH_SPL_SIZE_CHECK = @$(call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_UBOOT_WITH_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT)
	else
	UBOOT_WITH_SPL_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif

	ifneq ($(CONFIG_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT),0x0)
	SPL_SIZE_CHECK = @$(call size_check,$@,$$(tools/spl_size_limit))
	else
	SPL_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif

	ifneq ($(CONFIG_TPL_SIZE_LIMIT),0x0)
	TPL_SIZE_CHECK = @$(call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_TPL_SIZE_LIMIT))
	else
	TPL_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif

	ifneq ($(CONFIG_VPL_SIZE_LIMIT),0x0)
	VPL_SIZE_CHECK = @$(call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_VPL_SIZE_LIMIT))
	else
	VPL_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif


Is it really worth adding this much of extra code?


Best regards,
Philip



> 
> -- 
> Tom



-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,
Managing Director: Johanna Denk, Tabea Lutz
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
=====================================================================