On 2/21/19 9:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 21.02.19 09:41, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 2/21/19 9:40 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: >>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 09:29 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21.02.19 09:23, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 08:45 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20. 02. 19 2:58, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:56:19PM +0800, tien.fong.chee@intel. >>>>>>> com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Drop the statically allocated get_contents_vfatname_block and >>>>>>>> dynamically allocate a buffer only if required. This saves >>>>>>>> 64KiB of memory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan.ag...@toradex.com> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com> >>>>>>> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! >>>>>> please remove this patch (better both of them because they were >>>>>> in >>>>>> series) >>>>> I think patch 2/2 should be safe, because no memory size is >>>>> changed. >>>>> Basically, it just to release the allocated memory immediately when >>>>> it's not required, so other can re-use it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> because they are breaking at least ZynqMP SPL. It is also too >>>>>> late in cycle to create random fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't simply move 64KB from code to malloc without reflecting >>>>>> this >>>>>> by changing MALLOC space size. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other boards with SPL fat could be also affected by this if they >>>>>> don't >>>>>> allocate big malloc space. >>>>> So, any suggestion to get the patch 1/2 accepted? inform all board >>>>> maintainers to test it out? >>>> You already received feedback that it does break ZynqMP, so the >>>> current >>>> approach won't work. >>>> >>>> How about you create a new kconfig option that allows you to say >>>> whether >>>> you want to use malloc or .bss for temporary data in the FAT driver. >>>> You >>>> can then have an _SPL_ version of that kconfig and check for it with >>>> IS_ENABLED() which should automatically tell you the right answer >>>> depending on whether you're in an SPL build or not. >>>> >>>> Then you can set the SPL version to default malloc and the non-SPL >>>> version to default .bss. >>> Marek and Tom rini, >>> >>> Are you guys okay with Alex's suggestion? >> >> I'm not a big fan of adding more and more ifdeffery. >> Is there some other option ? > > Is RAM up already at this point? Maybe we could improve the SPL malloc > mechanism to move allocations into DRAM once it's available.
Well, the FAT buffers waste some 64kiB of bss, so we can use that area for malloc instead, no ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot