Hello Tom! On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:36:30 -0500 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:21:45AM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote: > > 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 ? > > So, with what is in master right now, BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 should > work as intended, while it did not at its introduction. Please > confirm if your use cases work now, or not. They don't actually, a few iterations ago i didn't even needed BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING (now it's clear for me that i never needed it), as make produced only a warning and not a error. I have kernel and ramdisk sections in my binman file and FIT image is fully functional even if they are missing. And now there is no way to tell u-boot not to fail if some blobs are missing. > The problem we needed to > solve was the one that by default previously, you could run "make > fooboard_config all", not have BL31/etc available, get a warning > printed and a zero exit code, leading to non-obvious failures if you > build indirectly (buildroot, yocto/OE, etc). > May be they shouldn't use BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING when building u-boot at all then ? Or can we, at least, have some BINMAN_REALLY_ALLOW_MISSING option or simply passing some flags with BINMAN_OPTS for example ? Through: -W, --ignore-missing Return success even if there are missing blobs/bintools (requires -M) seems to have really good synergy with: -M, --allow-missing Allow external blobs and bintools to be missing For BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING. Yours, Nikita Shubin.
