On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Simon Glass wrote:
The name of the bootdev device is not that important, particular in SPL. Save a little code space by using a simpler name.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
(no changes since v1)
boot/bootdev-uclass.c | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/boot/bootdev-uclass.c b/boot/bootdev-uclass.c index 807f8dfb064..79d4d990edb 100644 --- a/boot/bootdev-uclass.c +++ b/boot/bootdev-uclass.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ #include <malloc.h> #include <part.h> #include <sort.h> +#include <spl.h> #include <dm/device-internal.h> #include <dm/lists.h> #include <dm/uclass-internal.h> @@ -278,8 +279,13 @@ int bootdev_setup_for_sibling_blk(struct udevice *blk, const char *drv_name) int ret, len;
len = bootdev_get_suffix_start(blk, ".blk");
- snprintf(dev_name, sizeof(dev_name), "%.*s.%s", len, blk->name,
"bootdev");
if (spl_phase() < PHASE_BOARD_R) {
strncpy(dev_name, blk->name, sizeof(dev_name) - 5);strcat(dev_name, ".sib");} else {
snprintf(dev_name, sizeof(dev_name), "%.*s.%s", len, blk->name,"bootdev");}
parent = dev_get_parent(blk); ret = device_find_child_by_name(parent, dev_name, &dev);
I don't understand this change. In testing, I don't see any size reduction in SPL anywhere (no platforms shrink in SPL for this series) and just size growth in main u-boot in this function. Did the wrong comments get applied to this patch?