On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:55:08PM +1300, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 12:46, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:43:24PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:35 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:29:30PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:23 PM Tom Rini trini@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 sjg@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)
We build ~90 boards so we've historically copied it to each of the board build output directories, could look at setting vars for each of the loops too.
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!
It could easily be me getting confused, trying to balance a lot of plates right now :-/
OK, so yes, you've found a problem here. What I need to throw a CI loop at now is: diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index d48f52f2943b..b2253ac8ecde 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1334,7 +1334,7 @@ cmd_binman = $(srctree)/tools/binman/binman $(if $(BINMAN_DEBUG),-D) \ --toolpath $(objtree)/tools \ $(if $(BINMAN_VERBOSE),-v$(BINMAN_VERBOSE)) \ build -u -d u-boot.dtb -O . -m \
$(if $(BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING),--allow-missing --fake-ext-blobs) \
$(if $(BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING),--allow-missing --ignore-missing) \I think you need to keep the old flag too, right?
Not in my first pine64_plus only test, but I just threw CI at the world, so pass-or-fireworks in about an hour.