On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:01:16AM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote: > Hello Tom! > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:36:30 -0500 > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:21:45AM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote: > > > Hello Tom and Simon! > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:38:30 -0700 > > > Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > +Tom Rini > > > > > > > > We do actually want to report the failure, since it means that the > > > > image will not function. This was a recent change requested by a > > > > few people. > > > > > > It doesn't make sense to me - if i am passing "--allow-missing" than > > > binman shouldn't fail drastically, cause i literally told him "It's > > > okay if files are missing". What purpose does it have now, it we > > > are failing regardless we are providing this flag or not ? > > > > > > This breaks old behaviour by the way, when passing "--allow-missing" > > > for missing blobs produced a warning instead of error. > > > > > > > > > > > Note that buildman looks for the message 'Some images are > > > > invalid' and either returning 103, or 0 if -W is given. > > > > > > > > There is no attempt to produce a special exit code from the > > > > Makefile. It generally returns 2 (as per 'man make'), which is > > > > why buildman has this extra processing. > > > > > > Well, there are only 3 codes for make and 2 indicates any failure: > > > > > > "A status of two will be returned if any errors were encountered." > > > (c) > > > > > > This new behaviour looks the same with or without > > > BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING flag from top point of view: > > > > > > With BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1: > > > Some images are invalid > > > make[1]: *** [Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 103 > > > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot' > > > make: *** [Makefile:271: u-boot/u > > > > > > $ echo $? > > > 2-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2 > > > > > > Without BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING: > > > > > > binman: Filename 'fw_dynamic.bin' not found in input path > > > (.,.,./board/syntacore/scr7_elct,arch/riscv/dts) > > > (cwd='/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot') make[1]: *** > > > [Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory > > > '/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot' make: *** [Makefile:271: > > > u-boot/u-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2 > > > > > > $ echo $? > > > 2 > > > > > > So that's the difference if build is failing either way ? > > > > So, with what is in master right now, BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 should > > work as intended, while it did not at its introduction. Please > > confirm if your use cases work now, or not. > > They don't actually, a few iterations ago i didn't even needed > BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING (now it's clear for me that i never needed it), as > make produced only a warning and not a error.
Yes, it would only ever produce a warning before. > I have kernel and ramdisk sections in my binman file and FIT image is > fully functional even if they are missing. > > And now there is no way to tell u-boot not to fail if some blobs are > missing. What do you mean? That's what BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 does: $ make CROSS_COMPILE=~/.buildman-toolchains/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/aarch64-linux/bin/aarch64-linux- BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 -sj pine64_plus_defconfig all -sj;echo $? ... Image 'main-section' is missing external blobs and is non-functional: atf-bl31 scp /binman/u-boot-sunxi-with-spl/fit/images/atf/atf-bl31: Please read the section on ARM Trusted Firmware (ATF) in board/sunxi/README.sunxi64 /binman/u-boot-sunxi-with-spl/fit/images/scp/scp: SCP firmware is required for system suspend, but is otherwise optional. Please read the section on SCP firmware in board/sunxi/README.sunxi64 Some images are invalid 0 $ Is what I get on top of master right now. > > The problem we needed to > > solve was the one that by default previously, you could run "make > > fooboard_config all", not have BL31/etc available, get a warning > > printed and a zero exit code, leading to non-obvious failures if you > > build indirectly (buildroot, yocto/OE, etc). > > > > May be they shouldn't use BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING when building u-boot at > all then ? > > Or can we, at least, have some BINMAN_REALLY_ALLOW_MISSING option or > simply passing some flags with BINMAN_OPTS for example ? > > Through: > -W, --ignore-missing Return success even if there are missing > blobs/bintools (requires -M) > > seems to have really good synergy with: > > -M, --allow-missing Allow external blobs and bintools to be > missing > > For BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING. Yes, that's what BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 does. If top of tree master doesn't work for you, can you please post a patch so that the rest of us can replicate the failure and see what to do next? Thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
