Hi Tom,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 07:43, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:22:19PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 05:13:46PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 at 13:44, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 01:03:52PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 15:54, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 05:29:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Loading a FIT is useful for other VBE methods, such as ABrec. Create a > new function to handling reading it. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
This causes a bunch of growth: a3y17lte : all +1328 text +1328 u-boot: add: 8/0, grow: 1/0 bytes: 1328/0 (1328) function old new delta blkcache_fill - 332 +332 blkcache_read - 240 +240 blk_read - 188 +188 vbe_read_nvdata - 156 +156 vbe_read_version - 140 +140 vbe_get_blk - 100 +100 simple_read_nvdata - 96 +96 crc8 - 72 +72 vbe_simple_read_state 108 112 +4
Which is unexpected for just moving code around that's not newly used.
I hadn't noticed that on the boards I was trying, so thank you for spotting it.
This is because it now uses blk_read() instead of blk_dread(), so if
That's not what this patch does? There's no caller before or after in this patch of "blk_dread". Just moving functions around should not increase size on platforms that weren't using the existing functionality.
Firstly, are we looking at the same patch? Here is the one I am looking at:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20250109123010.4005298-2-sj...
You're right, I replied to the wrong patch here, sorry for the confusion. I'll move some of my comments in reply to the correct patch now.
[snip]
And even when it's just a move it's still growing: xilinx_zynqmp_virt: all +128 bss -72 text +200 u-boot: add: 4/0, grow: 0/-1 bytes: 540/-340 (200) function old new delta vbe_read_nvdata - 156 +156 vbe_get_blk - 148 +148 vbe_read_version - 140 +140 simple_read_nvdata - 96 +96 vbe_simple_read_state 452 112 -340
Unfortunately this one is hard to fix. As you know, whenever you take code from a single module and put it into another, the compiler cannot optimise away the function-call overhead. I'll note that there is no increase when LTO is used, e.g. with xilinx_versal_net_mini_qspi
Yes, but 200 bytes isn't just function call overhead. Some of that might be from going from one ALLOC_CACHE_ALIGN_BUFFER(u8, buf, MMC_MAX_BLOCK_LEN) to two?
This is the double buffer I was referring to.
OK, well that is just a declaration, so doesn't add any code, so far as I understand it.
I ran out of time this morning, but did find that the compiler cannot (of course) optimise the common range-checks when the code is in different files. So I fiddled with removing some of them and that gets the growth down, about 40 bytes on Thumb2 and 130 on aarch64, both without LTO.
I'll send a new series out later today.
Regards, Simon