On 7 February 2014 22:03, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.02.2014 19:59, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz >> <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>>> Well, once again, seeing some numbers would be good. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> What numbers do you want? Size comparisons with all SoC options on vs >>>> only one? >>> >>> >>> Yes, size comparisions with all SoCs (for given family) turned on vs >>> only one turned on (done on kernel without this patch applied). >>> >>> Also size comparisons for ARCH_EXYNOS4 and ARCH_EXYNOS5 both turned >>> on vs only ARCH_EXYNOS4 or ARCH_EXYNOS5 turned on (with this patch >>> applied). >> >> >> exynos_defconfig-based build data below. >> >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 5109986 319952 270196 5700134 56fa26 obj-tmp/vmlinux # all 4+5 SoCs >> enabled >> 5088312 296912 270196 5655420 564b7c obj-tmp/vmlinux # EXYNOS5 >> off, all EXYNOS4 SoCs enabled >> 5088032 296896 270196 5655124 564a54 obj-tmp/vmlinux # Only 4210 >> enabled >> 5079205 299928 270068 5649201 563331 obj-tmp/vmlinux # EXYNOS4 >> off, all EXYNOS5 SoCs enabled >> 5063355 286792 270068 5620215 55c1f7 obj-tmp/vmlinux # Only 5250 >> enabled >> 5067815 298152 270068 5636035 55ffc3 obj-tmp/vmlinux # Only >> 5250+5420 enabled >> 5053357 278480 269364 5601201 5577b1 obj-tmp/vmlinux # Only 5440 >> enabled >> >> The main difference of disabling 5440 is that it removed the PCI >> support, which explains that reduction in size. >> >> So, I would argue that theere might be some value in disabling whole >> families (since it saves about 20k of text and the same of data), but >> that there's less gain per SoC member. 5440 is an oddball in this >> setup so it might make sense to treat it differently due to the PCI >> aspect. > > > Well, the numbers basically represent what I expected. Thanks for checking > this. Thanks to Olof for coming out with these numbers. >So I second this patch even more now, Thanks Tomasz :) > but maybe let's change it a bit > and introduce third entry for Exynos5440, since it doesn't really belong to > either of ARCHs. Candidates that come to my mind are ARCH_EXYNOS5440 (seems > to specific) or ARCH_EXYNOS5_SERVER. Feel free to suggest anything better, > though. Though Exynos5440 belongs to the Exynos5 family, it is different in a few ways and hence I preferred to keep it as a separate entry for now. I agree with your suggestion to have a third ARCH category but I would prefer to wait for a while until we have one more candidate for this category so that we have a bit more data for naming and grouping. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |