> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Wood [mailto:scottw...@freescale.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:30 PM > To: Premi, Sanjeev > Cc: Kyungmin Park; Stefan Roese; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Shiraz HASHIM > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Multiple binaries built through u-boot source > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:14:57 +0530 > "Premi, Sanjeev" <pr...@ti.com> wrote: > > > [sp] I was pointed to this thread through another discussion. I did > > see (almost) an agreement reached here. > > > > But, wanted to share my experience on the same topic. > Posed with > > same problem, I had looked at minimizing the u-boot binary and > > had managed to reach 29-30KB > > NAND SPL typically needs to fit in just 4 KiB (sometimes even less). > > > In short, shouldn't we make u-boot more "configurable" so that > > parts we consider "integral" in u-boot today can also > be excluded > > e.g. support for unzip, tftp, ... > > Those things are configurable. That doesn't mean we don't need > makefile infrastructure to build the two (or sometimes three) separate > images, or some special code for an extremely minimal image.
[sp] Yes. When we need to be "extremely" small separate infra may be needed. But for rest, I feel we could/ should continue using the generic makefile infra - with more configuration options - that keeps maintenance low. I also feel that needs/requirements for the extremely small images will differ between the users. Maintaining compatibility will be a challenge for a common codebase. ~sanjeev > > -Scott > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot