On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:35 PM Tom Rini <tr...@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 <tr...@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 <s...@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 :-/ Peter