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

[Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>]

Hi Simon,
On 2023-03-10 21:49, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 14:02, Jonas Karlman <jonas@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

Regards,
Jonas

> 
> Regards,
> Simon