On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote: > > > > On 13.02.2019, at 11:10, David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Philipp, > > > > 在 2019/2/12 下午9:54, Philipp Tomsich 写道: > >>> On 12.02.2019, at 13:38, David Wu <david...@rock-chips.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Philipp, > >>> > >>> 在 2019/2/10 上午2:24, Philipp Tomsich 写道: > >>>> That said, I have been fighting issues from this patchset when trying to > >>>> read > >>>> from devices on the i2c0 bus on a RK3399—which had me add a “simple” > >>>> pinctrl device again, as pulling all the dependencies into the SPL is a > >>>> pain. > >>> > >>> I think you can also add the simple ops if necessary. Full pinctrl > >>> should only be used at the U-boot stage, or the SPL stage where the TPL > >>> is available. > >>> > >>> For most boards about 3288, there is no need to enable pinctrl at SPL > >>> stage, such as Tinker board. > >> Could you check whether TPL_MAX_SIZE and SPL_MAX_SIZE are correct for > >> the RK3288? If not, please submit a patch. > > > > It is correct, 32KB. > > Interesting... > I wonder why the build did not fail then, if SPL became too big.
This is probably the "we need BOARD_SIZE_CHECK used more widely too" issue that's come up in other threads. The linker-only check does not catch the CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE dtb exceeds limit problem as it's post-link. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
