[PATCH 0/9] binman: Show missing blob message when building U-Boot

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jonas,

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 01:45, Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
> On 2023-03-10 21:49, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Jonas,
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 14:02, Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> binman currently support showing a helpful missing blob message, but
> >> only when the --allow-missing flag is used.
> >>
> >> This changes so that binman is invoked with the --allow-missing flag
> >> and the helpful message can be shown by default when building U-Boot.
> >>
> >> Using the following:
> >>
> >>   make rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig
> >>   make CROSS_COMPILE="aarch64-linux-gnu-"
> >>
> >> Before this series a build fails with:
> >>
> >>   binman: Filename 'atf-bl31' not found in input path (...)
> >>
> >> After this series a build fails with:
> >>
> >>   Image 'simple-bin' is missing external blobs and is non-functional: atf-bl31
> >>
> >>   /binman/simple-bin/fit/images/@atf-SEQ/atf-bl31 (atf-bl31):
> >>      See the documentation for your board. You may need to build ARM Trusted
> >>      Firmware and build with BL31=/path/to/bl31.bin
> >>
> >>   Image 'simple-bin' is missing external blobs but is still functional: tee-os
> >>
> >>   /binman/simple-bin/fit/images/@tee-SEQ/tee-os (tee-os):
> >>      See the documentation for your board. You may need to build Open Portable
> >>      Trusted Execution Environment (OP-TEE) with TEE=/path/to/tee.bin
> >>
> >>   Some images are invalid
> >>
> >> Builds will continue to fail when there is missing blobs, and the use of
> >> BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1 now only enables the --ignore-missing flag.
> >>
> >> This series also fixes a few minor issues that prevented some missing
> >> and optional blobs to be detected for fit and mkimage entries.
> >>
> >> Patch 1-3 contains spelling fixes and code cleanup for related parts.
> >> Patch 4-6 improve missing/optional detection for fit and mkimage entries.
> >> Patch 7-8 improve the missing blob warning message output.
> >> Patch 9 finally update Makefile to always pass the --allow-missing flag.
> >>
> >> The series is based on top of [1], and is the follow-up series meant to
> >> address the issue with missing blob message for mkimage entries.
> >>
> >> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/20230219150629.4012377-1-jonas@kwiboo.se/
> >>
> >> Jonas Karlman (9):
> >>   binman: Remove redundant SetAllowFakeBlob from blob-ext entry
> >>   binman: Fix spelling of nodes in code comments
> >>   binman: Use correct argument name in docstrings
> >>   binman: Override CheckOptional in fit entry
> >>   binman: Implement missing check functions in mkimage entry
> >>   binman: Mark mkimage entry missing when its subnodes is missing
> >>   binman: Fix blank line usage for invalid images warning text
> >>   binman: Show filename in missing blob help message
> >>   Makefile: Show binman missing blob message
> >>
> >>  Makefile                                      |  2 +-
> >>  tools/binman/control.py                       | 24 ++++++---
> >>  tools/binman/entry.py                         |  2 +-
> >>  tools/binman/etype/blob.py                    |  2 +-
> >>  tools/binman/etype/blob_ext.py                |  8 ---
> >>  tools/binman/etype/fit.py                     |  9 +++-
> >>  tools/binman/etype/mkimage.py                 | 54 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  tools/binman/etype/section.py                 |  6 +--
> >>  tools/binman/ftest.py                         |  9 ++++
> >>  tools/binman/state.py                         |  2 +-
> >>  .../test/278_mkimage_missing_multiple.dts     | 19 +++++++
> >>  11 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/278_mkimage_missing_multiple.dts
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.39.2
> >>
> >
> > I applied what I could of this to -next
> >
> > Could you please take another look and see if we can get the rest in?
>
> Sure, I will take a look at a v2 (with more tests) in next few days.
>
> Still unclear what to do about "Makefile: Show binman missing blob
> message" at [2]. Should I re-send it as-is, change it or just drop it?
>
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230219220158.4160763-10-jonas@kwiboo.se/#3063614

I'd say resend since it seems right to me. I'll probably need to talk
to Tom about it.

Regards,
SImon