Hi! > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:40 AM Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > .name = "rpc-if-spi", > > > > > > - .pm = DEV_PM_OPS, > > > > > > + .pm = &rpcif_spi_pm_ops, > > > > > > > > You're aware rpcif_spi_pm_ops is now always referenced and thus emitted, > > > > > increasing kernel size by 92 bytes if CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n? > > > > > This may matter for RZ/A SoCs running from internal SRAM. > > > > > > > Hmm didn't realise this would be an issue on RZ/A. > > > > > > > Mark, could you please drop this patch from your branch. > > > > > > Please send an incremental patch with an appropriate changelog. > > > > Let's fix this properly. I'm pretty sure we have some macros that can > > solve this without re-introducing the ifdefs... > > There's pm_ptr(), but it uses CONFIG_PM as a selector, not CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. Okay; so we could introduce pm_sleep_ptr(). Or we could just put single #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP around the .pm assignment? That would be improvement on the original, and still result in the same binary, right? > > (Besides... 92 bytes. How big is kernel these days? 4MB? More? How > > much SRAM do you have?) > > 92 bytes is indeed not much (on 64-bit it would be doubled). > Still, it's good to make people think about innocent looking changes, > once in a while. > > RZ/A1H and RZ/A1M have 10 resp. 5 MiB of SRAM. > RZ/A2 has 4 MiB SRAM, which is sufficient to run Linux when used with > XIP (requires a one-line Kconfig change rmk has been vetoing for > years). Aha, that is a bit smaller than I expected. Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
