Hello Tom and Simon! On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:38:30 -0700 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> 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 ? Yours, Nikita Shubin. > > Regards, > Simon
