[PATCH 8/9] buildman: Propose a format for extra boards

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:20, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:03:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 19:40, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:23:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > > It has become more common to use config fragments to extend or adjust
> > > > the functionality of boards in U-Boot.
> > > >
> > > > Propose a format for how to deal with this. It is not implemented as
> > > > yet.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > I think that the first problem is that this patch series is an
> > > inappropriate method and place to start the discussion.
> >
> > We had a discussion a year ago but it trailed off.
>
> OK. Still an inappropriate place to resurrect it.

What do you suggest? I am trying to solve the problem, not just talk
about it, so patches are often best for that.

>
> > > I also think this gets things backwards as the common case is "make",
> > > not "buildman". We need more defconfig's that are just base +
> > > fragment(s) if they're important enough to be a combination that needs
> > > to be tested and work. A board is not a time-expensive part of CI. A
> > > pytest run is, a new job itself is.
> >
> > OK, that would work too. It would also avoid the problem of combinatorial
> > explosion. But I am not seeing people actually doing that, with rare
> > exceptions.
>
> I think it's the exception, not the rule, where config fragments are not
> being put to use in a defconfig. And that's possibly because not a lot
> of people seem to know about the #include option, and then when I
> explain it exists to people the next problem is "Oh, I have to do what
> so that buildman also works?".

Are you looking for any feature in Buildman for this? This series is
intended to fix [1]

Regards,
Simon

[1] https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/issues/30