From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67AFC4332F for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714BD8490B; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:21:54 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maquefel.me Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=maquefel.me header.i=@maquefel.me header.b="Xrfgpj92"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 826C284A16; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:21:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from forward502o.mail.yandex.net (forward502o.mail.yandex.net [37.140.190.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9E8084567 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:21:49 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maquefel.me Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nikita.shubin@maquefel.me Received: from iva3-6d6b5ab252da.qloud-c.yandex.net (iva3-6d6b5ab252da.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0c:c19:0:640:6d6b:5ab2]) by forward502o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 8E6ED25D3F80; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:21:47 +0300 (MSK) Received: by iva3-6d6b5ab252da.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id kLfUJ5hVFKo1-txieLniI; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:21:46 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=maquefel.me; s=mail; t=1671438106; bh=u4vZHIopnun/ZizfSBUvtNTy1Wx5BnarfaS390bWD80=; h=Cc:Message-ID:Subject:Date:References:To:From:In-Reply-To; b=Xrfgpj929by4E0U7E8oSS3N176tjre0awKqfW9/xDUpoCFRqLqhu9ZfckPny/rM8o d7+0Xrqr6tNw0yZxwxjrB+4BldOkKSfhrMo5/wsJKlTfT1iF/FaiMY153MWN5ppTPu nhiyKIsXvlZcGrmaz/ecIcEyWK84NSwKq6kaeZcg= Authentication-Results: iva3-6d6b5ab252da.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@maquefel.me Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:21:45 +0300 From: Nikita Shubin To: Simon Glass Cc: Tom Rini , linux@yadro.com, Nikita Shubin , Pali =?UTF-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= , Heinrich Schuchardt , Marek =?UTF-8?B?QmVow7pu?= , Quentin Schulz , u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add -W for BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING Message-ID: <20221219112145.0708131d@redslave.neermore.group> In-Reply-To: References: <20221216092745.31266-1-nikita.shubin@maquefel.me> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Hello Tom and Simon! On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 14:38:30 -0700 Simon Glass wrote: > +Tom Rini > > We do actually want to report the failure, since it means that the > image will not function. This was a recent change requested by a few > people. It doesn't make sense to me - if i am passing "--allow-missing" than binman shouldn't fail drastically, cause i literally told him "It's okay if files are missing". What purpose does it have now, it we are failing regardless we are providing this flag or not ? This breaks old behaviour by the way, when passing "--allow-missing" for missing blobs produced a warning instead of error. > > Note that buildman looks for the message 'Some images are invalid' and > either returning 103, or 0 if -W is given. > > There is no attempt to produce a special exit code from the Makefile. > It generally returns 2 (as per 'man make'), which is why buildman has > this extra processing. Well, there are only 3 codes for make and 2 indicates any failure: "A status of two will be returned if any errors were encountered." (c) This new behaviour looks the same with or without BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING flag from top point of view: With BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING=1: Some images are invalid make[1]: *** [Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 103 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot' make: *** [Makefile:271: u-boot/u $ echo $? 2-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2 Without BINMAN_ALLOW_MISSING: binman: Filename 'fw_dynamic.bin' not found in input path (.,.,./board/syntacore/scr7_elct,arch/riscv/dts) (cwd='/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot') make[1]: *** [Makefile:1114: .binman_stamp] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maquefel/workshop/overlord/u-boot' make: *** [Makefile:271: u-boot/u-boot-nodtb.bin] Error 2 $ echo $? 2 So that's the difference if build is failing either way ? Yours, Nikita Shubin. > > Regards, > Simon