Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] iot2050: Enable watchdog support, but do not auto-start it

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 13.09.21 16:56, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 13.09.21 14:34, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:57:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 11.09.21 02:10, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 04:24:05PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This allows to use the watchdog in custom scripts but does not enforce
>>>>>> that the OS has to support it as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the late reply.  This causes CI to fail:
>>>>> Building current source for 1 boards (1 thread, 16 jobs per thread)
>>>>>    aarch64:  +   iot2050
>>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING ATF file bl31.bin NOT found, resulting binary is non-functional
>>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING OPTEE file bl32.bin NOT found, resulting might be non-functional
>>>>> +(iot2050) binman: Filename 'k3-rti-wdt.fw' not found in input path (.,/home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot,board/siemens/iot2050,arch/arm/dts) (cwd='/tmp/iot2050/.bm-work/iot2050')
>>>>> +(iot2050) make[1]: *** [all] Error 1
>>>>> +(iot2050) make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
>>>>>     0    0    1 /1              iot2050
>>>>>
>>>>> And needs to be handled like ATF/OPTEE/etc where CI can build but throw
>>>>> a "THIS WILL NOT RUN CORRECTLY" type warning to the user.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was about to sent an update anyway - time passed, and now we even have
>>>> support for the next generation integrated from the beginning. But
>>>> related upstream DT changes are not yet merged.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>> But back to this issue: How can CI be fed with all those required
>>>> binaries? The build makes no sense in their absence.
>>>
>>> To be clearer, CI isn't fed all of the binaries, we just use /dev/null
>>> in that case and try and make it clear it won't boot.  K3 isn't a good
>>> example here, but I think sunxi uses binman and handles this same class
>>> of problem?
>>>
>>
>> I'm seeing it additionally carrying a "missing-msg" property, but that
>> alone (even with missing-blob-help updated) does not make the build
>> pass. It rather seems I'm missing some "allow_missing" property for that
>> image, but even reading the code gives no clue yet how to achieve that.
>> Yet another binman mystery.
> 
> You might also need a new file in tools/binman/etype/ ?  Also, it will
> have a non-zero exit status still, but with a value of 101 which we
> check for and know that's "binary blob missing" and so OK to allow CI to
> pass on.
> 

Err, that doesn't sound like binman is making my life easier. Why can't
a I simple do something like

	k3-rti-wdt-firmware {
		type = "blob";
		load = <0x82000000>;
		blob {
			filename = CONFIG_WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE;
			missing-msg = "k3-rti-wdt-firmware";
			allow_missing;
		};
	};

and be done?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux