[PATCH RFC v2 0/8] Fix handling of optional blobs in binman

[Yannic Moog]

Hi Simon,

Am Freitag, dem 30.05.2025 um 12:18 +0100 schrieb Simon Glass:
> Hi Yannic,
> 
> On Tue, 27 May 2025 at 14:24, Yannic Moog <y.moog at phytec.de> wrote:
> > 
> > This series solves a contradiction regarding ext blobs packaged in
> > binman. When they are marked as optional, by default they are faked, two
> > messages are emitted. One says the image is not functional the other
> > says the image is still functional. Both concern the same binman
> > entry/blob.
> > 
> > Binman is set up to have fake external blobs in case they are missing.
> > This is regardless on whether they are optional or not.
> > The implementation does not allow different types of entries to override
> > the faking decision; at least there wouldn't be much sense in doing so.
> > 
> > Here is an example build output of a phycore-imx8mp:
> > 
> >   BINMAN  .binman_stamp
> > Image 'image' is missing optional external blobs but is still functional:
> > tee-os
> > 
> > /binman/section/fit/images/tee/tee-os (tee.bin):
> >    See the documentation for your board. You may need to build Open Portable
> >    Trusted Execution Environment (OP-TEE) and build with
> > TEE=/path/to/tee.bin
> > 
> > Image 'image' has faked optional external blobs and is still functional:
> > tee.bin
> > 
> >   OFCHK   .config
> > 
> > The output will stay to inform/warn the user, but in this case the
> 
> s/will stay/stays/
> 
> We should use present / imperative tense.

Will change, thanks.

> 
> > tee-os entry will not be present in the final image.
> > 
> > The first patch makes binman test with --fake_ext_blobs by default to be
> > consistent with the default make target when building U-Boot. This
> > exposes an error as one test is failing where it should not (loadables).
> > Then, fix some tests that must not fake ext blobs and thus failed due to
> > the change.
> 
> Again I'm still not sure why we need to change the default, but once
> we have a bisectable series I will probably understand it better.
> 
> Please also rebase on -next

Will do.
> 
>