On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:25:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 14:41, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 02:00:31PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > At present binman returns success when told to handle missing blobs. > > > This is confusing this in fact the resulting image cannot work. > > > > > > Use exit code 103 to signal this problem, with a -W option to convert > > > it to a warning. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > I'm still not sure I like this, rather than changing the default "make" > > behavior. > > I did change that, in the sense that 'make' now fails if there are > missing blobs. > > > And then it gets me a bit worried that we have CI not doing > > some other things "right" as we don't want to ignore warnings in CI, we > > want warnings to become errors so that new warnings don't make it > > in-tree. > > That would be quite a big effort, and unrelated to this series. Here > are some warning types I'm aware of: > > - migration > - device tree > - compiler > - missing blobs > > Do we need a per-board whitelist for warnings? It seems pretty tricky to me. > > It is true that warnings are ignored in CI and this does create > problems...I'd love to make them into errors if we can.
This is I guess also a related concern. When I say warnings, I mean C compiler warnings. That we have flags to suppress "warnings" that are other kinds of valid warnings is at least a little confusing. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
