On 4/16/20 8:02 PM, Tom Rini wrote: [...] >>>>> I will not grow 200+ boards when there's >>>>> an easy way not to. >>>> >>>> By ~6 bytes, which happens with almost every DM patch. >>>> I am not buying the size argument. >>> >>> Nope, not true. Boards with tiny printf rarely grow their SPL size from >>> general changes (SoC trees only get scrutiny over growth in platforms >>> outside their area) because I get this annoying about why they grow in >>> size. >> >> OK, so look at socfpga_cyclone5_defconfig for example, which grew by 32 >> bytes between 2020.04 and u-boot/master thanks to: >> >> commit 0486497e2b5f4d36fa968a1a60fea358cbf70b65 >> lib: Improve _parse_integer_fixup_radix base 16 detection >> >> It uses tiny-printf, it grew from general change, and it came from SoC tree: >> https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-microblaze/-/commits/xilinx-for-v2020.07 >> >> It didn't take too long to find a counter-example ... > > Yup, it grew for a bugfix. The full growth is: > spl-u-boot-spl: add: 0/0, grow: 3/0 bytes: 56/0 (56) > function old new > delta > _parse_integer_fixup_radix 92 120 > +28 > ns16550_serial_ofdata_to_platdata 104 128 > +24 > ns16550_serial_probe 76 80 > +4 > > For other bugfixes too. Any of those bugfixes that can be done with > zero size growth would be appreciated.
So, how is this bugfix applicable, while a bugfix which fixes tiny printf to behave sane is not ? I don't really see a distinction here, sorry. And you should have rejected the above and asked for a more optimized version, based on 'I get this annoying about why they grow in size.'