On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:55:42AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 10:05, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: [snip] > > Yes, I very much do not like guessing about 3 numbers instead of > > guessing about 1 number and using the standard mechanism we already > > have. Please use BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT as this is the standard mechanism to > > enforce size limits on U-Boot itself. > > If it were that easy I would have sent a patch :-) > > Here is the map for this board: > > ImagePos Offset Size Name > 00000000 00000000 00800000 rom > ff800000 ff800000 00001000 intel-descriptor > ff801000 ff801000 001ff000 intel-me > ffef0000 ffef0000 000999f0 u-boot-with-ucode-ptr > fff899f0 fff899f0 00005554 u-boot-dtb-with-ucode > fff8ef50 fff8ef50 00000000 u-boot-ucode > fff8ef50 fff8ef50 00000571 fdtmap > fff90000 fff90000 00010000 intel-vga > fffa0000 fffa0000 0002fc94 intel-mrc > fffcfc94 fffcfc94 00000000 private-files > fffff800 fffff800 00000070 x86-start16 > fffffff0 fffffff0 00000005 x86-reset16 > fffffff8 fffffff8 00000008 image-header > > What limit should I set on what?
Is this a trick question? $ printf %d\\n $(( 0xfff90000 - 0xffef0000)) 655360 Of course since we're less than that today, you can reduce it by whatever other magic numbers I'm not seeing but are part of your assumed sizes. > - the U-Boot is the thing you are wanting to limit > - the dtb has microcode added > - the ucode is empty in this case > - the fdtmap is variable in size > > So this all seems a bit backwards. The actual limit is that > (u-boot-with-ucode-ptr + u-boot-dtb-with-ucode + u-boot-ucode + > fdtmap) fits in the space available. Note that some boards don't have > intel-vga or intel-mrc. > > With the other patch I sent I can have a sensible limit for all x86 boards. And you can set the same sensible limit with the existing mechanism with the bonus of it not making x86 different from the rest? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature