Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 25.08.2008 17:10, ron minnich wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de wrote:
Is the superio init code getting too complex? Or the "enable all flash" code? Or CAR init? Did I miss something
I don't think you missed anything. At the moment, I would bet that I have put un-needed stuff in stage 0. That is why I said "may" :-)
There's also some stuff which can be either in initram or the bootblock.
If something can be put in initram (or in another stage like initram), it should not live in the boot block.
The bootblock is the bare minimum of functions needed to get things up (ie for loading the other stages/modules), plus very few functions like printk that are used in all module stages.
If anything suddenly starts bloating the bootblock, there is most likely a conceptional bug in that code.
We also may decide to switch to gcc -combine -fwhole-program for the bootblock. That would probably reduce bootblock size by 20%.
I heard you say that before. Is it as simple as enabling those switches in the makefiles? Or will it require further action?
I agree if there are 20% in for just enabling a compiler option, we should definitely use it. But using compiler revision dependent trickery and hacks to be able to go bloat elsewhere is not the right approach.