Hi Soeren, [I think you sent your email with html or something so it is a big mangled. I'll just add one comment]
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 02:27, Soeren Moch <sm...@web.de> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On 12.03.22 06:02, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Soeren, > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 15:43, Soeren Moch <sm...@web.de> wrote: > > > > On 09.03.22 16:33, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 07:25, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 08:10:38PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 20:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:32:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 17:13, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:20:15PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Soeren, > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 12:15, Soeren Moch <sm...@web.de> wrote: > > On 08.03.22 17:56, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 09:49, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 3/8/22 12:36, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > With this patch set[1] applied, UEFI subsystem maintains a list of its > disk objects dynamically at runtime based on block device's probing. > (See "issues" below.) > > [1]https://github.com/t-akashi/u-boot/tree/efi/dm_disk > > This series together with Simon's series breaks multiple boards due to > size constraints: > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi/-/pipelines/11197 > > Please, investigate how to work around this issue. > > tbs2910 - perhaps we should just drop this board? It doesn't use > DM_SERIAL and still uses OF_EMBED > > Are we again at the same point? You are breaking working boards with > (for these boards) useless additions, and all you come up with is > "remove this board". Of course without adding the board maintainer. > > I'm just expressing reasonable frustration that this board uses > OF_EMBED and does not use DM_SERIAL, after all of this time. Why > should the rest of the U-Boot developers care more about this board > than the maintainer? > > I cannot see what is is reasonable here. > > I care about this board, what you can simply see by the fact that I even > picked this thread from the mailing list while you "forgot" to cc me. > > This is the patch I sent: > > [PATCH 2/5] tbs2910: Disable ext4 write > > It shows that you are on cc. What are you referring to? > > I'm referring to the exact same email thread that I answered in, which btw. > is still this exact same thread for this answer. Why should I refer to the > totally different email thread you cited here? > > OF_EMBED and DM_SERIAL are not at all related to EFI or size constraints. > > I'm surprised that you can speak for "the rest of the U-Boot > developers", and that you want to push your frustration onto tbs2910 > developers and users. Why is it my fault that other people add code size > without guarding config options? Why is it my fault that nobody informed > me that there is again a size problem? > > Your board is up against the limit and this causes problems. Please > take a look and see how you can add some margin. Takahiro's series > does add size and this is unavoidable. See my series of today for some > fixes for the SPL size, but for U-Boot proper we have to accept the > growth. > > As it stands here this is just your opinion. Why exactly is this unavoidable? > > Please keep in mind Simon that we've had zero releases with the > DM_SERIAL migration warning being posted, v2022.04 will be the first > one. > > Yes, understood :-) For OF_EMBED though...? > > No deadline and 50 boards. > > Er, there has been a build message about that since the beginning, so > people ignored it. Do we really need to make the build fail for these > sorts of things? Perhaps so, but it is a sad situation. > > Yes, in hind-sight, "don't do that" wasn't the right path. It would be > a good idea to start a different thread and see what / how the platforms > can be migrated away. > > For tbs2910 this is just a workaround for a strange property of the imx > build system. OF_SEPARATE created a broken u-boot.imx when I tried last > time. > > OK, that is worth digging in to. > > Probably. I'm happy to test whatever someone comes up with. > > > I think there is a use case for it now - e.g. booting Apple M1 which > uses a separate bootloader. IMO a .img or .fit file would be better in > some cases but people seem to be allergic to implementing U-Boot > things in their code bases. We have the same requirement for the EFI > app since UEFI does not implement the U-Boot .img file. > > So if we are going to support this, perhaps we should create a new > option for it. But honestly I am just too weary to consider yet > another migration. We need to finish some, e.g. Kconfig. > > It was actually quite hard to add a migration message until we added > the CONFIG_SERIAL base thing and that was a pain to do. > > For those of us who take on larger refactors etc., we end up spending > a lot of our time on these few platforms. I'm not picking on tbs2910in > in particular. > > Well, the flip side of the problem here is that there's a number of > platforms with real constraints to them and it keeps being "can we drop > this yet?" without CC'ing the board maintainer on the series that once > again pushes a given platform to the limit. I would expect no size > growth to tbs2910 for the topic of this series since it disables > EFI_LOADER entirely, so why is it a problem? > > The partition changes are going to add some size anyway, I expect. I > have not actually analysed it though. Perhaps we can just disable a > filesystem? > > OK, you did not even analyse where the problem comes from. But disabling > user visible functionality on my board is the natural solution to that? > Strange. > > As above, please create some space so people can continue to develop. > There are refactors and features updates which require more code > space. It is somewhat rare, but it happens perhaps every year. > > It has always been u-boot policy that additional new features should not > break existing boards, usually by disabling these new features in defconfig. > It is also not new that there are boards with size constraints. > > If someone causes regressions, then I at least expect that this is thoroughly > analysed. > > I was a bit too absolutist there, sorry. Yes, a few hundreds of bytes > here-and-there is probably a non issue. But it shouldn't be kilobytes. > It really shouldn't push things over the line. > > And on the tbs2910 side, Soeren, can you look at enabling LTO for this > platform? That would likely buy a good bit of space savings. That > might well be needed to do further DM migrations/etc. > > I'm not familiar with LTO in U-Boot, but will have a look at the weekend. > > OK, I suggest getting it several KB under the limit if you can, or > perhaps even drop the limit. > > I already reduced tbs2910 image size several times by substantial amounts. > And this is becoming more and more difficult. The size limit is real. > > Thanks Tom for the LTO suggestion, this will buy us another round. I sent a > patch for that. > > But please, everyone, be careful with additional code size for existing > boards. Additional code size is not unavoidable for disabled new features. > You just did not try hard enough. Please take a look at Tahahiro's series and tell me how we can avoid adding a driver for partitions, when the whole point of the series is to add a driver for partitions :-) Regards, Simon
