From: Jagan Teki
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Duncan Hare wrote:
>> An observation: The Banana PI boards, allwinner based, I've use have a
>> boot.scr file on the fat partition to direct booting.
>> A Suggestion: If this is widespread, the memory used by the u-boot image
>> could be re
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Duncan Hare wrote:
> An observation: The Banana PI boards, allwinner based, I've use have a
> boot.scr file on the fat partition to direct booting.
> A Suggestion: If this is widespread, the memory used by the u-boot image
> could be reduce by eliminating much o
An observation: The Banana PI boards, allwinner based, I've use have a boot.scr
file on the fat partition to direct booting.
A Suggestion: If this is widespread, the memory used by the u-boot image could
be reduce by eliminating much of the
pre-defined boot hush scripts.
I offer this as an obse
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:09:52 +0100
Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:30:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > 1;5002;0c
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02
> From: Andre Przywara
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:17:37 +
>
> Hi,
>
> On 19/12/17 13:51, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> From: Andre Przywara
> >> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:38:59 +
> >>
> >> Hi Maxime,
> >>
> >> thanks for having a look!
> >>
> >> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 08:42:22AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:15:46 +0100
> > From: Maxime Ripard
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 01:55:51AM +, Andr=E9 Przywara wrote:
> > > On 19/12/17 15:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:15:46 +0100
> From: Maxime Ripard
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 01:55:51AM +, Andr=E9 Przywara wrote:
> > On 19/12/17 15:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
> > >>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 01:55:51AM +, André Przywara wrote:
> On 19/12/17 15:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
> >>> From: Maxime Ripard
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, A
On 19/12/17 15:36, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:27:57PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from
> 516kB to 478kB, making it functional again *and* allowing us to enable
> the DT overlays that seem way more imp
On 19/12/17 15:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
>>> From: Maxime Ripard
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit bo
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:24:59 +0100
> From: Maxime Ripard
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
> > > From: Maxime Ripard
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > So even thou
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:27:57PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> >>> Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from
>> >>> 516kB to 478kB, making it functional again *and* allowing us to enable
>> >>> the DT overlays that
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:36:13PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:27:57PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > >>> Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from
> > >>> 516kB to 478kB, making it functional again *and* allowing us to enable
> > >>> the DT ov
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:27:57PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>> Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from
> >>> 516kB to 478kB, making it functional again *and* allowing us to enable
> >>> the DT overlays that seem way more important than any feature
> >>> mentionned a
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:41:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
> > From: Maxime Ripard
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> > > below the l
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:41:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > All these trimming(if it fits) seems to be nice for now, but what if
> > once driver-model MMC, reset, pinctrl, clk, regulator are IN?
I guess a better question would be: what are we doing to fix an issue
we had in a release already
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> On 19/12/17 14:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Maxime,
thanks for having a look!
Hi,
On 19/12/17 14:38, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> On 19/12/17 14:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Maxime,
thanks for having a look!
On 19/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 19/12/17 14:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> Hi Maxime,
>>>
>>> thanks for having a look!
>>>
>>> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2
Hi Maxime,
On 19/12/17 14:20, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> thanks for having a look!
>>
>> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
So even though t
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:22:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/12/17 14:20, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:09:52PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:30:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripa
Hi,
On 19/12/17 14:20, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:09:52PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:30:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
1;5002;0c
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:09:52PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:30:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > 1;5002;0c
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 01:38:59PM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> thanks for having a look!
>
> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >> So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
Hi,
On 19/12/17 13:51, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> From: Andre Przywara
>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:38:59 +
>>
>> Hi Maxime,
>>
>> thanks for having a look!
>>
>> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
So even though the a
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:28:03PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > - VIDEO_BPP8, VIDEO_BPP16
> > - VIDEO_ANSI
> > - SHA256
> > - LZMA
> >
> > Removing those options make the u-boot.itb binary size going from
> > 516kB to 478kB, making it func
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:30:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > 1;5002;0c
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:12:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at
> From: Andre Przywara
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:38:59 +
>
> Hi Maxime,
>
> thanks for having a look!
>
> On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >> So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewh
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:12:02 +0100
> From: Maxime Ripard
>
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> > below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over
> > the edge. So
Hi Maxime,
thanks for having a look!
On 19/12/17 13:12, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
>> below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over
>> th
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:28:03PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> >>below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:26:40PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 1;5002;0c
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:12:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > > So even though the
On 12/19/2017 02:12 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over
the edge. So since v2017.11 u-boot.itb is al
1;5002;0c
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:15:31AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:12:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> > > below the lim
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:12:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> > below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over
> > the edge. So si
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:20AM +, Andre Przywara wrote:
> So even though the actual u-boot.bin for 64-bit boards is still somewhat
> below the limit (~480KB), adding the ATF image (~32KB) pushes it over
> the edge. So since v2017.11 u-boot.itb is already too big for the
> traditional MMC en
36 matches
Mail list logo
