On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 08. 10. 19 15:25, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:50:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:42:58PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:36 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:20:40PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>> On 07. 10. 19 23:15, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hey all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's release day and while we've once again had some last minute > >>>>>>>> regression fixes, I feel things are as stable as they are likely to > >>>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>> so I've tagged and released v2019.07 and I would like to thank all of > >>>>>>>> our contributor for their efforts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I expect v2019.10 :-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oops. I did get the tag right this time at least. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To repeat something I posted about in the previous -rc release, I've > >>>>>>>> clarified on the http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees > >>>>>>>> page > >>>>>>>> that the "next" branch is expected to be rebased. Why? While I'm > >>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>> sure if I want to apply things directly to the next branch and then > >>>>>>>> give > >>>>>>>> them some sort of automated testing, I do want to try and give > >>>>>>>> changes > >>>>>>>> some sort of build testing and similar sooner than I have, and that > >>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>> at least a related problem. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In terms of a changelog, > >>>>>>>> git log --merges v2019.10-rc4..v2019.10 > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> git log --merges v2019.07..v2019.10 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For this next release, one big concern I have but that I am hopeful > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>> will be able to overcome is that we need to remove Python 2.7 > >>>>>>>> support. > >>>>>>>> Python 2.7 itself is end of lifed on January 1st, 2020. There's > >>>>>>>> been a > >>>>>>>> number of patches posted that get us a good part of the way there > >>>>>>>> and I > >>>>>>>> believe we can get the rest done before the deadline. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The merge window is once again open and I plan to tag -rc1 on October > >>>>>>>> 28th, bi-weekly -rcs thereafter and final release on January 6th, > >>>>>>>> 2020. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am preparing pull request and I see that release has issue with > >>>>>>> sheevaplug board. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 01: Prepare v2019.10 > >>>>>>> arm: + sheevaplug > >>>>>>> +u-boot.kwb exceeds file size limit: > >>>>>>> + limit: 524288 bytes > >>>>>>> + actual: 524632 bytes > >>>>>>> + excess: 344 bytes > >>>>>>> +make[1]: *** [u-boot.kwb] Error 1 > >>>>>>> +make[1]: *** Deleting file 'u-boot.kwb' > >>>>>>> +make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I saw this occasionally when I prepared the u-boot-x86 PR during past > >>>>> days, but I thought that was due to patches in my queue. However I > >>>>> remember I only saw excess 8 bytes or something, not 344 bytes ... > >>>>> > >>>>>>> There are also warnings about conversions to DM. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is it OK to ignore these boards which should be likely removed? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, how / where are you making this fail? I know it's been noted > >>>>>> elsewhere that this happens, and also that the EFI PR will address > >>>>>> this, > >>>>>> but my travis and gitlab pipelines passed. So that implies to me > >>>>> > >>>>> My latest run of gitlab-ci passed as well. Again I was not sure if > >>>>> that was due to I dropped some SPL patches that were previously in the > >>>>> queue. > >>>>> > >>>>>> there's some /full/path string(s) somewhere that we should find and > >>>>>> address. Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> I see a few full path to source files in the resulting binary: > >>>> $ strings /tmp/sheevaplug/current/sheevaplug/u-boot.bin | grep home > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/ubi/attach.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/net/eth_legacy.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/ubi/vtbl.c > >>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c > >>> > >>> And we have -fmacro-prefix-map patches but our default toolchain doesn't > >>> support it (and these come from BUG/BUG_ON) and I still don't know of > >>> anyplace that provides a full set of new enough toolchains for use on > >>> all of the architectures we care about. > >> > >> For BUG/BUG_ON in SPL/TPL, wouldn't the function name and line be enough > >> info? > > > > Note that for Sheevaplug it's the full U-Boot that's blowing up and not > > SPL/TPL. > > Anyway back to the problem. If path matters for all these cases. > Path depends on your github username because clone is done like that. > > git clone --depth=50 --branch=mainline-v20191008 > https://github.com/michalsimek/u-boot.git michalsimek/u-boot > > And buildman is running without -o property. Shouldn't we setup -o > property that it will behave the same for everybody? > -o /tmp/ ? > > Then all pathes should be the same for everybody without any dependency > on github user name.
It's the source path not the binary path that's encoded in to the binary, is the problem. I don't know if we can easily / reliably do our builds somewhere else (gitlab for example is, or will be shortly, /builds/gitlab/u-boot in all cases) on Travis. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
