[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: mxs: Make the console buffer smaller
Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com Cc: Lauri Hintsala lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com Cc: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br Cc: Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de --- include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/
diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h index a684166..161d89d 100644 --- a/include/configs/mxs.h +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " #endif -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */ #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \ (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16) /* Print buffer size */
Hi Marek,
On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com Cc: Lauri Hintsala lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com Cc: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br Cc: Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de
include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/
diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h index a684166..161d89d 100644 --- a/include/configs/mxs.h +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " #endif -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */ #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \ (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16) /* Print buffer size */
I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are quite long nowadays.
Best regards, Stefano
Hello Stefano,
I'm CCing Wolfgang,
Hi Marek,
On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote:
Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@freescale.com Cc: Lauri Hintsala lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com Cc: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br Cc: Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de
include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/
diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h index a684166..161d89d 100644 --- a/include/configs/mxs.h +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " #endif
-#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */
#define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \
(CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16)
/* Print buffer size */I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are quite long nowadays.
True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hallo Marek,
On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote:
I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are quite long nowadays.
True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.
I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to save some bytes.
Best regards, Stefano
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de wrote:
Hallo Marek,
On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote:
I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are quite long nowadays.
True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point.
I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to save some bytes.
I think this is more than enough to justify a bigger buffer.
-- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://projetos.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
participants (3)
-
Marek Vasut -
Otavio Salvador -
Stefano Babic