Re: [PATCH 1/5] kbuild: thin archives final link close --whole-archives option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2017-06-24 0:04 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 02:31:40PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> As far as I tried,  minus MACH_SUN8I still enabled the following:
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_DIV=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_FRAC=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_GATE=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_MUX=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_MULT=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_PHASE=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_NK=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_NKM=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_NKMP=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_NM=y
>>> CONFIG_SUNXI_CCU_MP=y
>>>
>>> I think you need to disable some more MACH_SUN*I and
>>> perhaps disable some CONFIG_SUN*I_*_CCU explicitly,
>>> then you will see difference in the result.
>>
>> Ah, right, it's all selected by the rest.
>>
>> I guess to get a meaningful example you could disable all the
>> SUN*I_CCU (SUN5I, SUN8I, and the likes) options and while keeping
>> SUN8I_R_CCU.
>>
>> Most of the clock types shouldn't be used but div and gates.
>
> Given that we appear to basically always pull in all (or most) of
> the CCU parts anyway, and it's hard to even test with a subset
> being disabled, I wonder how much we care about dropping
> the unused objects at all:
>
> Maybe the answer is that we just always build all of them into
> the kernel and make only the SoC-specific objects configurable ;-)
>
> Once we start linking with  --gc-sections, it will all be fine anyway.
>

I agree!




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux