[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1513777158.1538.24.camel@Nokia-N900>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:39:18 +0100
From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>,
Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board
Hi Arnd!
On Wed Dec 20 14:14:07 2017 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > If it will be still possible to build the binary kernel of the same
> > size after the conversion, I'm in for testing, otherwise it will not
> > fit into Flash any more...
>
> I think there is an increase in code size that comes mainly from the
> common clock layer itself, plus a few bytes here and there. Obviously
> the increase is much bigger if you actually enable multiple platforms.
>
> Here is the size of the uncompressed vmlinux file with the current
> clk implementation, compared to a build with a build containing the
> common clk code but no clock driver, and the separate clock
> implementation we have today:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 4752655 1036028 128260 5916943 5a490f build/tmp/vmlinux-old-clk
> 4780174 1040524 128284 5948982 5ac636 build/tmp/vmlinux-common-clk
> 2491 1700 0 4191 105f
> build/tmp/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/clock.o
>
> The difference would come to about 0.7% of the current image size,
> I guess around 1% when the other changes are included. Is that within
> the margins you have, or is this already critical?
No, your numbers are promising, I was afraid of the increase of other orders of magnitude. So this should be fine.
Thanks for this info.
--
Alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists