On 13.09.21 16:56, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 13.09.21 14:34, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:57:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 11.09.21 02:10, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 04:24:05PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> This allows to use the watchdog in custom scripts but does not enforce >>>>>> that the OS has to support it as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the late reply. This causes CI to fail: >>>>> Building current source for 1 boards (1 thread, 16 jobs per thread) >>>>> aarch64: + iot2050 >>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING ATF file bl31.bin NOT found, resulting binary is >>>>> non-functional >>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING OPTEE file bl32.bin NOT found, resulting might be >>>>> non-functional >>>>> +(iot2050) binman: Filename 'k3-rti-wdt.fw' not found in input path >>>>> (.,/home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot,board/siemens/iot2050,arch/arm/dts) >>>>> (cwd='/tmp/iot2050/.bm-work/iot2050') >>>>> +(iot2050) make[1]: *** [all] Error 1 >>>>> +(iot2050) make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 >>>>> 0 0 1 /1 iot2050 >>>>> >>>>> And needs to be handled like ATF/OPTEE/etc where CI can build but throw >>>>> a "THIS WILL NOT RUN CORRECTLY" type warning to the user. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was about to sent an update anyway - time passed, and now we even have >>>> support for the next generation integrated from the beginning. But >>>> related upstream DT changes are not yet merged. >>> >>> OK. >>> >>>> But back to this issue: How can CI be fed with all those required >>>> binaries? The build makes no sense in their absence. >>> >>> To be clearer, CI isn't fed all of the binaries, we just use /dev/null >>> in that case and try and make it clear it won't boot. K3 isn't a good >>> example here, but I think sunxi uses binman and handles this same class >>> of problem? >>> >> >> I'm seeing it additionally carrying a "missing-msg" property, but that >> alone (even with missing-blob-help updated) does not make the build >> pass. It rather seems I'm missing some "allow_missing" property for that >> image, but even reading the code gives no clue yet how to achieve that. >> Yet another binman mystery. > > You might also need a new file in tools/binman/etype/ ? Also, it will > have a non-zero exit status still, but with a value of 101 which we > check for and know that's "binary blob missing" and so OK to allow CI to > pass on. >
Err, that doesn't sound like binman is making my life easier. Why can't a I simple do something like k3-rti-wdt-firmware { type = "blob"; load = <0x82000000>; blob { filename = CONFIG_WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE; missing-msg = "k3-rti-wdt-firmware"; allow_missing; }; }; and be done? Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux