[PATCH] Revert "mksunxi_fit_atf.sh: Allow for this to complete when bl31.bin is missing"

[Petr Štetiar]

Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> [2020-03-17 09:20:38]:

Hi,

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:12:55PM +0100, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> 
> > This reverts commit 4c78028737c3185f49f5691183aeac3478b5f699.
> > 
> > bl31.bin file is mandatory for functional, usable and bootable binaries,
> > thus it should be hard error if bl31.bin is missing. It doesn't matter
> > if I'm building on autobuilder or locally, the resulting binaries should
> > be usable in both cases.
> > 
> > Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
> > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Štetiar <ynezz at true.cz>
> > ---
> > 
> > I've just spent some time hunting eMMC boot issue on a64-olinuxino. It's
> > really easy to miss that warning message on fast build hosts as the message is
> > scrolled out very quickly out of the screen and thus using the broken images,
> > which would get stuck at `Trying to boot from MMC2`.
> > 
> > I think, that if it's desired to have broken images on the output, then it
> > should be handled on the autobuilder itself before build of sunxi target.
> > 
> > Another option is probably adding AUTOBUILDER_ALLOW_BROKEN_IMAGES config
> > option, which would make it clear for everybody.
> > 
> >  board/sunxi/mksunxi_fit_atf.sh | 6 ------
> >  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> It's the case that the vast majority of aarch64 platforms only function
> when we have other binary files available for the final link and so have
> a similar we had hoped loud enough WARNING message.  And yes, this is so
> that all of the different CI systems can complete build testing.

so there's some requirement, that the CI systems should always build with
simple `make` call? You know, `make BL31=/dev/null` works just fine if having a
green build, but unusable binaries is desired.

> So, can you please RFC some patches such that we can still run CI but we
> drop all of the "non-functional" WARNING messages we have?  Thanks!

If it's desired to bloat the codebase with config options and ifdefs just to
adapt for unflexible CI systems, fine with me, I'll do so.

Cheers,

Petr