On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:29:30PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:23 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:13:03PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 2:17 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Buildman should consider a build as a success (with warnings) if missing > > > > blobs have been dealt with by binman, even though buildman itself > > > > returns > > > > and error code overall. This is how other warnings are dealt with. > > > > > > > > We cannot easily access the 103 exit code, so detect the problem in the > > > > output. > > > > > > > > With this change, missing blobs result in an exit code of 101, although > > > > they still indicate failure. > > > > > > So either this or Tom's change of "buildman: Add --allow-missing flag > > > to allow missing blobs" has broken rc3 builds for Allwinner boards on > > > Fedora. Tom's isn't a clean revert and I've not had time to test that > > > but either way the SCP firmware is optional and it works just fine, > > > ATM we don't have the SCP firmware available to Fedora builds. > > > > > > Maybe that sort of of change to the build is expected but which ever > > > patch it is, and adding "BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1" changes the error but > > > doesn't change the overall failure, I wouldn't expect this sort of > > > breakage so late in the cycle. > > > > > > Do either of you know which one does the hard breakage here? I thought > > > I'd highlight it now because I don't have time over the next two weeks > > > to fully investigate the regression. > > > > So, is this for 32bit or 64bit? I only have a 64bit allwinner in my lab > > 64 bit, 32 bit is EOL in Fedora as of F-36. > > > and it needs (I've been assuming, since I'm also passing in SCP) BL31 as > > BL31 isn't the same as SCP, the later is a firmware for the onboard > PMIC co-processor where as BL31 is Arm Trusted Firmware.
Right, yes. > > well. And since you're mentioning buildman, I assume Fedora IS using > > that rather than make to build everything. I'll go and think about this > > I'm using: > make pine64_plus_defconfig O=builds/pine64_plus/ > cp /usr/share/arm-trusted-firmware/sun50i_a64/bl31.bin builds/pine64_plus/ > make CROSS_COMPILE="/usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-" O=builds/pine64_plus/ OK, that's a little different than how I run make, that's why it wasn't caught at least. I do: export SCP=/home/trini/work/u-boot/external-binaries/pine64_plus/scp.bin export BL31=/home/trini/work/u-boot/external-binaries/pine64_plus/bl31.bin make O=/tmp/pine64_plus pine64_plus_defconfig all -sj$(nproc) > I thought binman was basically default for this now. We have too many *man tools sometimes. I thought you said buildman, yes, binman assembles the images here, when invoking make. Digging more now, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
