On 11.02.2014 07:30, Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2014-02-10 10:20 GMT+05:30 Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx>:
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.
Well, I also, having soc number would be good like 5440 you thought
because I can't say upcoming exynos ARMv7 based SoCs are familiar with
previous exynos SoCs or not at this moment. And it means sometimes we
need to add the numbering and sometime we don't need. It's not fair
enough I think. And I have strong objection on Thomasz' suggestion
about ARCH_EXYNOS5_SERVER? Please don't guess.
Well, we know that we do not want to see new options for every single
new SoC that are similar to existing ones. It's just not needed, as
the size comparisons above shows.
So, I think today, we should have three options:
EXYNOS4
EXYNOS5
EXYNOS5440
5440 can depend on EXYNOS5 today if it makes sense. Only reason to let
it have its own option is that it's substantially different from the
others in that it pulls in PCI and causes kernel size to go up.
Well, hardware-wise it's completely different. Even the pin controller
needs a separate driver (pinctrl-exynos5440.c vs
pinctrl-exynos.c+pinctrl-samsung.c), so I believe a third option is
completely justified.
If
other SoCs are added that are quire similar to 5440, then the right
option is probably to group them under an option together with 5440.
It doesn't matter if it's called server or something else as long as
they're mostly kept together. And for now that's just theoretical
anwyay: Let's keep calling it 5440 until there's reason to change it.
Fair enough. That was basically my first proposal, which sounded a bit
too specific to me, but I guess it can't be helped.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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
