Hi Tom,
(yes Mark I am trying to stop further boards going in that use the
shell scripts)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:05, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:22:41PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:57:57PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 11:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:27:41AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:15, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 09:13:02AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 07:24, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 08:52:25AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > More than a year after this migration message appeared, we
> > > > > > > > > > still have new
> > > > > > > > > > boards being added with this option. Add a check against
> > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please just make this an error in checkpatch.pl instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I couldn't think of a way of doing that...do you have an idea?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, 2f3e8d6a86cb ("checkpatch: report ERROR only on disabling of
> > > > > > > fdt
> > > > > > > and initrd relocation") updates the check I had for
> > > > > > > fdt_high/initrd_high
> > > > > > > being in the file at all to only be for additions. And yes, I
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > every PR for new checkpatch ERROR lines and only ignore the ones
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > code imported from other projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I understand that, but SPL_FIT_GENERATOR defaults to on for
> > > > > > certain boards, so there is no need to mention it anywhere in the
> > > > > > patch. Also someone could adjust the condition in the Kconfig to add
> > > > > > other boards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you want something a bit more like the fdt|initrd_high check now,
> > > > > along with updating the help around SPL_FIT_GENERATOR to note that
> > > > > this
> > > > > option is deprecated, is the path forward then I think.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still a bit lost.
> > > >
> > > > What I want: break the build if someone adds a new board that uses
> > > > SPL_FIT_GENERATOR
> > > >
> > > > What you are offering: checkpatch check for people adding that option
> > > >
> > > > But the patch doesn't generally include that option.
> > > >
> > > > I can certainly mention in the Kconfig help that the option is
> > > > deprecated, but without checking if it is defined for a NEW board, I
> > > > cannot prevent it from growing.
> > > >
> > > > What am I missing? Can you be more specific?
> > >
> > > How do you add a new board that enables SPL_FIT_GENERATOR without
> > > "SPL_FIT_GENERATOR" being in the resulting patch, other than being
> > > ARCH_ZYNQMP/ARCH_ROCKCHIP ?
> >
> > Well that's the case I am most concerned with, actually. Also, someone
> > might add a new condition to SPL_FIT_GENERATOR.
>
> For the current cases, we just need to get them migrated since it's all
> the same logic? So it would I think be a one-and-done thing. For a new
Yes I think so and some of them are done. These are what I can find:
./arch/riscv/lib/mkimage_fit_opensbi.sh
./arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
./arch/arm/mach-imx/mkimage_fit_atf.sh
./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py
but they are not used by that many boards.
I feel that the amount of pending migration is somewhat overwhelming
and we should take a stronger line in mainline.
Perhaps I should send a patch to simply remove the option? Would that
be acceptable?
Regards,
Simon
> conditional, it should trip checkpatch by having the words in it, and
> also since the help would also say to not do this, and we already
> generate a warning, it shouldn't be an issue?
>
> --
> Tom
