On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:38:06AM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This series decreases the image size and bss size a bit. First > > we make malloc available in all initcalls by moving the malloc > > pool initialization before start_barebox(). > > > > We then decrease the image size by making some statically initialized > > structs smaller. struct command has a struct list_head member > > which can be removed by wrapping the static struct command into > > a dynamically initialized one which contains the list_head. Also > > the embedded struct device_d in struct bus_type is removed in > > favour for a dynamically allocated one. > > > > Also we make the bss smaller by allocating the FILE table and > > the gpio_desc table dynamically. The bss size is may become > > a problem on boards which run from SRAM. Here the malloc pool > > is in the big SDRAM area, but the bss is in SRAM, so it makes > > sense to move the big tables from bss to SDRAM by using malloc. > > > > How much less > > IIRC I try this too but with PBL it's bigger With PBL it's still smaller, but on a pcm038 defconfig it's only 18 bytes, so this is not really worth the effort. Decreasing the bss size still makes sense though. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
