[PATCH v2 1/2] spl: Add size check for u-boot-with-spl.bin

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 07:49:06AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:10:48PM +0200, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > 
> > > Introduce another SIZE_CHECK macro for u-boot-with-spl.bin.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <pro at denx.de>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Notes:
> > >     Changes in v2: none
> > > 
> > >  Makefile           | 7 +++++++
> > >  common/spl/Kconfig | 7 +++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > 
> > So, for u-boot-with-spl.imx we use BOARD_SIZE_CHECK and
> > CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT. I think for consistency it would be better to
> > re-use that option here and expand the help text on
> > CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT to note which build targets make use of it.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback! I've tried that, but I have the following
> issue:
> 	- 402K for u-boot-nodtb.bin
> 	- 152K for u-boot-lzma.img
> 	- 191K for u-boot-with-spl.bin
> 
> The end result, u-boot-with-spl.bin, meets the size restriction of 192K.
> Nevertheless, an intermediary (uncompressed) artifact, u-boot-nodtb.bin,
> causes the build to fail.
> 
> 
> Instead of introducing a new Kconfig option, it should be fine to reuse 
> CONFIG_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT for u-boot-with-spl.bin. I'm not sure which way is
> better. What do you think?

Ah, OK, I wasn't quite sure and it's unfortunate that the various size
check options are all slightly differently named. Yes, if you can use
SPL_SIZE_LIMIT here to catch the problem, that's the right one.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250602/8f9b0b8b/attachment.sig>