[PATCH] Makefile: add -W for BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:01:16AM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it would only ever produce a warning before.

> 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.

What do you mean? That's what BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 does:
$ make CROSS_COMPILE=~/.buildman-toolchains/gcc-12.2.0-nolibc/aarch64-linux/bin/aarch64-linux- BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 -sj pine64_plus_defconfig all -sj;echo $?
...
Image 'main-section' is missing external blobs and is non-functional: atf-bl31 scp

/binman/u-boot-sunxi-with-spl/fit/images/atf/atf-bl31:
   Please read the section on ARM Trusted Firmware (ATF) in
   board/sunxi/README.sunxi64

/binman/u-boot-sunxi-with-spl/fit/images/scp/scp:
   SCP firmware is required for system suspend, but is otherwise optional.
   Please read the section on SCP firmware in board/sunxi/README.sunxi64

Some images are invalid
0
$

Is what I get on top of master right now.

> > 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.

Yes, that's what BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 does. If top of tree master
doesn't work for you, can you please post a patch so that the rest of us
can replicate the failure and see what to do next? Thanks.

-- 
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/20221222/acdaf49b/attachment.sig>