On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:37:18AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:20, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:03:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 19:40, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:23:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
It has become more common to use config fragments to extend or adjust the functionality of boards in U-Boot.
Propose a format for how to deal with this. It is not implemented as yet.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
I think that the first problem is that this patch series is an inappropriate method and place to start the discussion.
We had a discussion a year ago but it trailed off.
OK. Still an inappropriate place to resurrect it.
What do you suggest? I am trying to solve the problem, not just talk about it, so patches are often best for that.
Well, in that there's a problem to be solved, it's that buildman makes #include more painful that it should be to use.
Or, we validate config fragments by building them. A requires-buildman solution is not appropriate. That: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241114115049.2070780-2-pa... doesn't use the acpi.config fragment is because of the parsing issue buildman has.
I also think this gets things backwards as the common case is "make", not "buildman". We need more defconfig's that are just base + fragment(s) if they're important enough to be a combination that needs to be tested and work. A board is not a time-expensive part of CI. A pytest run is, a new job itself is.
OK, that would work too. It would also avoid the problem of combinatorial explosion. But I am not seeing people actually doing that, with rare exceptions.
I think it's the exception, not the rule, where config fragments are not being put to use in a defconfig. And that's possibly because not a lot of people seem to know about the #include option, and then when I explain it exists to people the next problem is "Oh, I have to do what so that buildman also works?".
Are you looking for any feature in Buildman for this? This series is intended to fix [1]
Yes, the part of this series that, if I read it right, causes buildman to read the preprocessed config file, rather than the raw defconfig, is what should fix that, as the final patch in the series confirmed.