[U-Boot] [ANN] U-Boot v2019.10 released

Tue Oct 8 14:17:08 UTC 2019

On 08. 10. 19 16:02, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 08. 10. 19 15:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:50:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:42:58PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:36 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:20:40PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07. 10. 19 23:15, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's release day and while we've once again had some last minute
>>>>>>>>>> regression fixes, I feel things are as stable as they are likely to get
>>>>>>>>>> so I've tagged and released v2019.07 and I would like to thank all of
>>>>>>>>>> our contributor for their efforts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expect v2019.10 :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oops.  I did get the tag right this time at least.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To repeat something I posted about in the previous -rc release, I've
>>>>>>>>>> clarified on the http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees page
>>>>>>>>>> that the "next" branch is expected to be rebased.  Why?  While I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> sure if I want to apply things directly to the next branch and then give
>>>>>>>>>> them some sort of automated testing, I do want to try and give changes
>>>>>>>>>> some sort of build testing and similar sooner than I have, and that was
>>>>>>>>>> at least a related problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In terms of a changelog,
>>>>>>>>>> git log --merges v2019.10-rc4..v2019.10
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> git log --merges v2019.07..v2019.10
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For this next release, one big concern I have but that I am hopeful we
>>>>>>>>>> will be able to overcome is that we need to remove Python 2.7 support.
>>>>>>>>>> Python 2.7 itself is end of lifed on January 1st, 2020.  There's been a
>>>>>>>>>> number of patches posted that get us a good part of the way there and I
>>>>>>>>>> believe we can get the rest done before the deadline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The merge window is once again open and I plan to tag -rc1 on October
>>>>>>>>>> 28th, bi-weekly -rcs thereafter and final release on January 6th, 2020.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am preparing pull request and I see that release has issue with
>>>>>>>>> sheevaplug board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 01: Prepare v2019.10
>>>>>>>>>        arm:  +   sheevaplug
>>>>>>>>> +u-boot.kwb exceeds file size limit:
>>>>>>>>> +  limit:  524288 bytes
>>>>>>>>> +  actual: 524632 bytes
>>>>>>>>> +  excess: 344 bytes
>>>>>>>>> +make[1]: *** [u-boot.kwb] Error 1
>>>>>>>>> +make[1]: *** Deleting file 'u-boot.kwb'
>>>>>>>>> +make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I saw this occasionally when I prepared the u-boot-x86 PR during past
>>>>>>> days, but I thought that was due to patches in my queue. However I
>>>>>>> remember I only saw excess 8 bytes or something, not 344 bytes ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are also warnings about conversions to DM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it OK to ignore these boards which should be likely removed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, how / where are you making this fail?  I know it's been noted
>>>>>>>> elsewhere that this happens, and also that the EFI PR will address this,
>>>>>>>> but my travis and gitlab pipelines passed.  So that implies to me
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My latest run of gitlab-ci passed as well. Again I was not sure if
>>>>>>> that was due to I dropped some SPL patches that were previously in the
>>>>>>> queue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there's some /full/path string(s) somewhere that we should find and
>>>>>>>> address.  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see a few full path to source files in the resulting binary:
>>>>>> $ strings /tmp/sheevaplug/current/sheevaplug/u-boot.bin  | grep home
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/ubi/attach.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/net/eth_legacy.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/ubi/vtbl.c
>>>>>> /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_bbt.c
>>>>>
>>>>> And we have -fmacro-prefix-map patches but our default toolchain doesn't
>>>>> support it (and these come from BUG/BUG_ON) and I still don't know of
>>>>> anyplace that provides a full set of new enough toolchains for use on
>>>>> all of the architectures we care about.
>>>>
>>>> For BUG/BUG_ON in SPL/TPL, wouldn't the function name and line be enough info?
>>>
>>> Note that for Sheevaplug it's the full U-Boot that's blowing up and not
>>> SPL/TPL.
>>
>> Anyway back to the problem. If path matters for all these cases.
>> Path depends on your github username because clone is done like that.
>>
>> git clone --depth=50 --branch=mainline-v20191008
>> https://github.com/michalsimek/u-boot.git michalsimek/u-boot
>>
>> And buildman is running without -o property. Shouldn't we setup -o
>> property that it will behave the same for everybody?
>> -o /tmp/ ?
>>
>> Then all pathes should be the same for everybody without any dependency
>> on github user name.
> 
> It's the source path not the binary path that's encoded in to the
> binary, is the problem.  I don't know if we can easily / reliably do our
> builds somewhere else (gitlab for example is, or will be shortly,
> /builds/gitlab/u-boot in all cases) on Travis.

Is there something blocking us to move it to /tmp?

M

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Microblaze
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM and ZynqMP ARM64 SoCs
U-Boot custodian - Xilinx Microblaze/Zynq/ZynqMP/Versal SoCs