[PATCH] Makefile: add -W for BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING

[Nikita Shubin]

Hello Tom and Simon!

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:38:30 -0700
Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> +Tom Rini
> 
> We do actually want to report the failure, since it means that the
> image will not function. This was a recent change requested by a few
> people.

It doesn't make sense to me - if i am passing "--allow-missing" than
binman shouldn't fail drastically, cause i literally told him "It's okay
if files are missing". What purpose does it have now, it we are failing
regardless we are providing this flag or not ?

This breaks old behaviour by the way, when passing "--allow-missing"
for missing blobs produced a warning instead of error.

> 
> Note that buildman looks for the message 'Some images are invalid' and
> either returning 103, or 0 if -W is given.
> 
> There is no attempt to produce a special exit code from the Makefile.
> It generally returns 2 (as per 'man make'), which is why buildman has
> this extra processing.

Well, there are only 3 codes for make and 2 indicates any failure:

"A status of two will be returned if any errors were encountered." (c)

This new behaviour looks the same with or without BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING
flag from top point of view:

With BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1:
Some images are invalid
make[1]: *** [Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 103
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot'
make: *** [Makefile:271: u-boot/u

$ echo $?
2-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2

Without BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING:

binman: Filename 'fw_dynamic.bin' not found in input path
(.,.,./board/syntacore/scr7_elct,arch/riscv/dts)
(cwd='/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot') make[1]: ***
[Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory
'/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot' make: *** [Makefile:271:
u-boot/u-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2

$ echo $?
2

So that's the difference if build is failing either way ?

Yours,
Nikita Shubin.

> 
> Regards,
> Simon