On 3/7/19 8:32 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:16:51PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 19/2/19 13:10, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> For platforms such as the at91, the boot ROM imposes an upper limit
>>> on barebox file size. Prior to 5a1a5ed253 ("ARM: images: use piggydata"),
>>> BAREBOX_MAX_PBLX_SIZE seems to have been the way to go for limiting
>>> the size of the final barebox binary when using the PBL.
>>> With pblx removed, this variable is of no use, so have the existing
>>> BAREBOX_MAX_IMAGE_SIZE replace its functionality.
>>>
>>> Currently BAREBOX_MAX_IMAGE_SIZE is only checked against in the non-PBL
>>> case, so add a check in the PBL case as well.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/configs/am335x_mlo_defconfig | 2 +-
>>> common/Kconfig | 10 ----------
>>> images/Makefile | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> any news on these two patches?
>
> I applied the first one as I think it does nothing wrong. I am always
> hesitating to apply such patches because I think we need to do this
> better. For example when doing multi image builds different ROMs with
> different size limitations might be involved, so putting the limitation
> in Kconfig is wrong.
Ah, I didn't think about multi-image when I wrote this patch. I am
slowly getting it. Thanks for the feedback!
Specifying it entry-point-wise in images/Makefile.* seems to be the better
place then.
Cheers
Ahmad
>
> 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
