Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v6 0/7] Add barebox bootloader support (and testing)

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2024-09-18 at 12:39 +0200, Enrico Jörns wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Am Mittwoch, dem 18.09.2024 um 11:11 +0100 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> > On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 11:18 +0200, Enrico Jörns via
> > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > This adds support for the barebox bootloader (and tools) to oe-
> > > core.
> > > 
> > > In order to have proper testing, this extends oe-selftest to
> > > allow
> > > basic testing of bootloaders. While at it, cover both u-boot and
> > > barebox.
> > > 
> > > v6:
> > > * replace barebox.inc by barebox.bbclass (move content of
> > >   barebox-common.inc into .bbclass and .bb files)
> > > * support for UNPACKDIR
> > > 
> > > Enrico Jorns (5):
> > >   barebox: set default BAREBOX_CONFIG for qemu machines
> > >   oeqa/utils/qemurunner: support ignoring vt100 escape sequences
> > >   oeqa: support passing custom boot patterns to runqemu
> > >   oeqa/selftest/cases: add basic u-boot test
> > >   oeqa/selftest/cases: add basic barebox tests
> > > 
> > > Marco Felsch (2):
> > >   barebox: add initial support
> > >   barebox-tools: add initial barebox tools support
> > 
> > We had some testing capacity so I ran this through automated
> > testing.
> > The one issue that showed up so far was:
> > 
> > https://valkyrie.yoctoproject.org/#/builders/29/builds/174/steps/13/logs/warnings
> > 
> > which is at least easily fixed! The rest of the build is still
> > going.
> 
> thanks for the test run and the first result.
> 
> Indeed, looks easily fixable 😉
> Is it worth a v7 or should I wait for other results to show up?

Most of the tests have run and there were other issues in the build but
there was one other issue I noticed:

https://valkyrie.yoctoproject.org/#/builders/54/builds/149/steps/14/logs/stdio

which is a missing maintainers entry. Probably worth a v7 with those
two things fixed.

Cheers,

Richard