Hi Simon, On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 06:06 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Yannic, > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 03:30, Yannic Moog <y.m...@phytec.de> wrote: > > > > The top level Makefile calls binman with fake-ext-blobs. > > The test setup should reflect this to spot potential bugs before > > reaching users. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yannic Moog <y.m...@phytec.de> > > --- > > tools/binman/ftest.py | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/ftest.py b/tools/binman/ftest.py > > index a553ca9e564..1f194f9ecae 100644 > > --- a/tools/binman/ftest.py > > +++ b/tools/binman/ftest.py > > @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ class TestFunctional(unittest.TestCase): > > def _DoTestFile(self, fname, debug=False, map=False, update_dtb=False, > > entry_args=None, images=None, use_real_dtb=False, > > use_expanded=False, verbosity=None, > > allow_missing=False, > > - allow_fake_blobs=False, extra_indirs=None, > > threads=None, > > + allow_fake_blobs=True, extra_indirs=None, threads=None, > > test_section_timeout=False, update_fdt_in_elf=None, > > force_missing_bintools='', ignore_missing=False, > > output_dir=None): > > """Run binman with a given test file > > > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > I would like this default to stay the same (False) because that is the > normal case for Binman. We should expand the test-coverage as needed.
Can you help me understand why we fake blobs in the call to binman when building U-Boot? You say that not faking is the normal case so why are we doing something abnormal in the top-level Makefile? I think that this inconsistency is a potential for bugs going unnoticed so whatever we decide to do I would very much like to be consistent with testing and "normal" builds. Yannic > > Regards, > Simon
