From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UEykB-0003Ag-N9 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:10:08 +0000 From: Juergen Beisert Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:29 +0100 References: <1362826391-16215-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <1362826391-16215-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201303111008.29412.jbe@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] image and bss size decrease To: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi Sascha, Sascha Hauer wrote: > [...] > 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. It would also be possible to instruct the linker to locate the BSS in the big SDRAM area. But that might interfere with very running early code using variables in BSS while the SDRAM isn't up and running yet. jbe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Beisert | Linux Solutions for Science and Industry | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox