[PATCH] Makefile: add -W for BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING

[Nikita Shubin]

Hello Tom!

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:36:30 -0500
Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:21:45AM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > 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 ?  
> 
> So, with what is in master right now, BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 should
> work as intended, while it did not at its introduction.  Please
> confirm if your use cases work now, or not. 

They don't actually, a few iterations ago i didn't even needed
BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING (now it's clear for me that i never needed it), as
make produced only a warning and not a error.

I have kernel and ramdisk sections in my binman file and FIT image is
fully functional even if they are missing.

And now there is no way to tell u-boot not to fail if some blobs are
missing.

> The problem we needed to
> solve was the one that by default previously, you could run "make
> fooboard_config all", not have BL31/etc available, get a warning
> printed and a zero exit code, leading to non-obvious failures if you
> build indirectly (buildroot, yocto/OE, etc).
> 

May be they shouldn't use BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING when building u-boot at
all then ?

Or can we, at least, have some BINMAN_REALLY_ALLOW_MISSING option or
simply passing some flags with BINMAN_OPTS for example ?

Through:
  -W, --ignore-missing  Return success even if there are missing
blobs/bintools (requires -M)

seems to have really good synergy with:

 -M, --allow-missing   Allow external blobs and bintools to be
 missing

For BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING.

Yours,
Nikita Shubin.