[PATCH 2/2] qconfig: Ignore defconfigs containing #include

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:35:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 15:12, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 02:20:00PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 at 10:15, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 05:22:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Running "tools/qconfig.py -s" will re-sync files with #include in them
> > > > > and so un-#include them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ignore these and mark them as failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > Fixes: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/issues/28
> > > >
> > > > How about marking them as warnings? It may be good to re-sync
> > > > configs/am62px_evm_a53_defconfig for example and then re-add the
> > > > #include line, but configs/am62x_evm_a53_ethboot_defconfig on the other
> > > > hand very much should not be resynced. Thanks for getting on this issue
> > > > so quickly.
> > >
> > > Do you mean still do the resync, but show a warning? It does
> > > obliterate the old defconfig, but I suppose people can just not commit
> > > the changes. Is that what you are thinking?
> >
> > No, sorry for being unclear. I was thinking it should NOT be resynced
> > but counted as a warning not a failure.
> 
> Well qconfig doesn't have the concept of a warning, or at least not in
> the title. How important is this?

I assumed it was using the same status counter bar that buildman uses.
If you can't easily do warning not error, OK.

-- 
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/20241014/7b24039e/attachment.sig>