On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 03:56:14AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 11/22/19 3:53 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:38:51AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 11/22/19 2:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 02:27:16AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 11/22/19 1:32 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 01:23:56AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/21/19 11:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 11/21/19 10:59 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>> On 11/21/19 9:12 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:09:29PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>> Hello Soeren, >>>>>> >>>>>> when trying to add support for function key support in the USB keyboard >>>>>> driver u-boot.imx for the TBS2910 surpassed the maximum size for >>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/marex/u-boot-usb/builds/614059004 >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you remember why on the TBS2910 board this size is limited to >>>>>> 0x5fc00? Other i.MX6 boards like the Wandboard allow a much larger >>>>>> u-boot.imx. >>>>>> >>>>>> The limit is defined here: >>>>>> include/configs/tbs2910.h:80: >>>>>> #define CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT 392192 /* (CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET - 1024) */ >>>>>> >>>>>> Could the value CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0x60000 be enlarged? >>>>>> >>>>>> Many i.MX6 defconfigs use CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET=0xC0000. >>>>> >>>>> The nature of these boards (aimed at end users) means that we just do >>>>> not want to / cannot really move the stored environment. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Another possibility would be to reduce the image size by using >>>> CONFIG_REGEX=n which should be fine for a board with only one supported >>>> network interface. >>> >>> But the board was fine before your patchset got applied and this is just >>> a workaround for added bloat, which reduces functionality. I dislike >>> trading functionality for bloat, sorry. >> >> One persons "bloat" is another persons "added functionality". > > It would seem this board did not suffer from the lack of this particular > functionality before, and I would say that a board should stay at least > as functional as it was when it was added. Replacing existing > functionality with random unrelated new one makes no sense.
Was it tho? I believe we're talking about supporting some additional keys via USB keyboard. This board does in fact expect users to be at the U-Boot prompt via USB keyboard.
How did you reach this conclusion ? It seems to be some sort of devkit.
It came up in one of the previous threads about this board and what we can / cannot do about the size constraint and the board maintainers unhappiness about the overall size growth and broken releases (until size growth became a link error on the platform).
Link please ? It sounds relevant to this thread too.
https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-April/365297.html
>> I believe >> the specific changes in question that once again push this board over >> fall in to that grey area. Whatever size-trimming the board maintainer >> is fine with next is fine with me, but needs to get ack'd by someone. > > Or, the other option is, make these new extra features configurable and > disable them on this board. And so there should be no size problem.
But that direction leads to saying every slight bit of functionality requires a new Kconfig entry. Some levels of bugfixes as well.
The other option is, we will sink in bloat and suffer endless size problems.
Yes, it is a hard balancing act. Stepping back, perhaps a "minimal" or "complete" choice for USB HID devices would make sense and allow us further areas to reduce size, on the minimal portion.
Or maybe there is a way to help compiler optimize that USB key code handling better.
Perhaps. But my point is that every little functional change or enhancement does not need a Kconfig option.
Except this leads to slow and steady accumulation of bloat, and as we already see for quite a while, this is problematic for more and more boards.
And "bloat" and "features" are interchangable terms. I really am trying to be more responsive than ever to size growth in common, rather than board specific areas. And I agree, some investigation in to ways that might reduce the size of binary support for USB HID devices is good. Figuring out if we can make this series: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=135448 not also increase the overall size, or increase it less, is good. Hiding the content of 2/5 behind a CONFIG option in turn brings us back to "the code is too messy and full of #ifdef" lines.