On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 20:08 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 00:05 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > I was focused at that point mainly on the kernel static size, and using >> > a combination of Josh Triplett's tinification tree, Andi Kleen's LTO and >> > net-diet patches, and my own miscellaneous patches that I was planning >> > on eventually upstreaming, I ended up with a system that I could boot to >> > shell with a 455k text size: >> > >> > Memory: 235636K/245176K available (455K kernel code, 61K rwdata, >> > 64K rodata, 132K init, 56K bss, 3056K reserved, 0K cma-reserved) >> Thanks for sharing your experience. The question closer to this >> discussion what did you do against TTY/UART/(related) layer(s)? >> > > I'd have to go back and take a look, but nothing special AFIAR. > > No patches or hacks along those lines, and the only related thing I see > as far as config is: > > cfg/pty-disable.scc \ > > which maps to: > > # CONFIG_UNIX98_PTYS is not set But on your guestimation how much can we squeeze TTY/UART layer if we do some compile-time configuration? Does it even make sense or better to introduce something like minitty special layer instead? I believe you did some research during time of that project… -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
