[PATCH 4/5] binman: Use an exit code when blobs are missing

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 15:05, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:25:36PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 14:41, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 02:00:31PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > > At present binman returns success when told to handle missing blobs.
> > > > This is confusing this in fact the resulting image cannot work.
> > > >
> > > > Use exit code 103 to signal this problem, with a -W option to convert
> > > > it to a warning.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > I'm still not sure I like this, rather than changing the default "make"
> > > behavior.
> >
> > I did change that, in the sense that 'make' now fails if there are
> > missing blobs.
> >
> > > And then it gets me a bit worried that we have CI not doing
> > > some other things "right" as we don't want to ignore warnings in CI, we
> > > want warnings to become errors so that new warnings don't make it
> > > in-tree.
> >
> > That would be quite a big effort, and unrelated to this series. Here
> > are some warning types I'm aware of:
> >
> > - migration
> > - device tree
> > - compiler
> > - missing blobs
> >
> > Do we need a per-board whitelist for warnings? It seems pretty tricky to me.
> >
> > It is true that warnings are ignored in CI and this does create
> > problems...I'd love to make them into errors if we can.
>
> This is I guess also a related concern. When I say warnings, I mean
> C compiler warnings. That we have flags to suppress "warnings" that are
> other kinds of valid warnings is at least a little confusing.

Yes. But of course binman doesn't have any other kind of warning, so
so long as we don't propagate that flag further, it makes sense I
think.

The warnings in U-Boot are at least somewhat out of control IMO, as
per my list above.

Regards,
Simon