| Message ID | 1371332488-13026-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Stefano Babic |
| Headers | show |
Hi Marek, On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote: > Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, > lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> > Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com> > Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> > --- > include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/ > > diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h > index a684166..161d89d 100644 > --- a/include/configs/mxs.h > +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ > #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT > #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " > #endif > -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ > +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */ > #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \ > (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16) > /* Print buffer size */ > I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are quite long nowadays. Best regards, Stefano
Hello Stefano, I'm CCing Wolfgang, > Hi Marek, > > On 15/06/2013 23:41, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, > > lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> > > Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com> > > Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> > > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> > > --- > > > > include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/ > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h > > index a684166..161d89d 100644 > > --- a/include/configs/mxs.h > > +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h > > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ > > > > #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT > > #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " > > #endif > > > > -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ > > +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */ > > > > #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \ > > > > (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16) > > > > /* Print buffer size */ > > I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the > console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on > the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are > quite long nowadays. True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point. Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hallo Marek, On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote: >> I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the >> console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on >> the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are >> quite long nowadays. > > True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are > hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point. I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to save some bytes. Best regards, Stefano
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote: > Hallo Marek, > > On 17/06/2013 14:51, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> I am missing something: which is the real advantage to reduce the >>> console buffer ? I do not think that the saved memory is worth, and on >>> the other side more elaborated scripts (usings nested if-then-else) are >>> quite long nowadays. >> >> True, but so far they didn't overflow this limit I believe. Some of them are >> hanging on the verge of blowing it though, good point. > > I think that a point to consider is if all scripts are already provided > or we let the user/owner of the board to add his own scripts, as I > presume. It is pity if he cannot do what u-boot really supports only to > save some bytes. I think this is more than enough to justify a bigger buffer. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://projetos.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
diff --git a/include/configs/mxs.h b/include/configs/mxs.h index a684166..161d89d 100644 --- a/include/configs/mxs.h +++ b/include/configs/mxs.h @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT #define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT "=> " #endif -#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 1024 /* Console I/O buffer size */ +#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE 256 /* Console I/O buffer size */ #define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE \ (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16) /* Print buffer size */
Using 1024 bytes for console buffer is unnecessarily too much, lower the amount for all MXS boards to 256. Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> Cc: Lauri Hintsala <lauri.hintsala@bluegiga.com> Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> --- include/configs/mxs.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Note: This depends on http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/251631/