Re: [PATCH 8/9] buildman: Propose a format for extra boards

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:03:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 19:40, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:23:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > > It has become more common to use config fragments to extend or adjust
> > > the functionality of boards in U-Boot.
> > >
> > > Propose a format for how to deal with this. It is not implemented as
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >
> > I think that the first problem is that this patch series is an
> > inappropriate method and place to start the discussion.
> 
> We had a discussion a year ago but it trailed off.

OK. Still an inappropriate place to resurrect it.

> > I also think this gets things backwards as the common case is "make",
> > not "buildman". We need more defconfig's that are just base +
> > fragment(s) if they're important enough to be a combination that needs
> > to be tested and work. A board is not a time-expensive part of CI. A
> > pytest run is, a new job itself is.
> 
> OK, that would work too. It would also avoid the problem of combinatorial
> explosion. But I am not seeing people actually doing that, with rare
> exceptions.

I think it's the exception, not the rule, where config fragments are not
being put to use in a defconfig. And that's possibly because not a lot
of people seem to know about the #include option, and then when I
explain it exists to people the next problem is "Oh, I have to do what
so that buildman also works?".

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]