Hi Marek,
On 19 May 2016 at 08:22, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 05/19/2016 06:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 14 May 2016 at 15:41, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 05/14/2016 11:22 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi!
On 14 May 2016 at 14:23, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 05/14/2016 10:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Move these to debug() like the one in check_cache range(), to save SPL space.
This hides cache problems, which were visibly reported so far. I am opposed to this patch.
Sure, but see check_cache_range(). It uses debug(). In fact I found the at91 cache problem only after trying #define DEBUG in the code there.
Which is the reason we should really be vocal about such cache misuse. I had a few of such cache problems bite me too, which is why I would like to avoid silencing this warning with debug() by default.
I think check_cache_range() should also be fixed and should use printf() by default.
Wouldn't it make more sense to completely disable printf() and co. in SPL if you're after saving space?
Or maybe we need something that prints a message in U-Boot proper, but not SPL? I'll take a look.
But what if you trigger the issue only in SPL ?
Yes, but is that likely? So far I don't think the cache is enabled in SPL...
Yeah, it's probably unlikely.
btw have you tried patching away all console IO support in SPL? Does it save space?
No I have not. I imagine it would, though. There is also the option now of using the debug UART, which avoids the small amount of serial/console overhead.
[snip]
Regards, Simon