On 08. 10. 19 16:02, Tom Rini wrote: > 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.
Is there something blocking us to move it to /tmp? M -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Microblaze Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM and ZynqMP ARM64 SoCs U-Boot custodian - Xilinx Microblaze/Zynq/ZynqMP/Versal SoCs _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
