[PATCH v5 10/16] buildman: Detect binman reporting missing blobs

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:13:03PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 2:17 AM Simon Glass <sjg at 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
and it needs (I've been assuming, since I'm also passing in SCP) BL31 as
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
now..

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20221205/2f50fd9b/attachment.sig>