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. Why is vbe_simple_read_state changing at all here, when it's not being touched?
BLOCK_CACHE is enabled, it will use the block cache. We could disable BLOCK_CACHE on those boards perhaps? It is a speed optimisation so shouldn't be used by boards which care about code size.
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
So let me know what you think.
You likely need to re-think your refactor a bit then. If it's in part G or H that we have more than one caller of any of these functions, that's perhaps where it's time to refactor and expose them?