CI build for quanta/gbs
George Hung (洪忠敬)
George.Hung at quantatw.com
Fri May 7 17:10:56 AEST 2021
We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
Thanks a lot.
It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com<mailto:geissonator at gmail.com>> wrote:
On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim at google.com<mailto:brandonkim at google.com>> wrote:
`gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com<mailto:venture at google.com>> wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com<mailto:geissonator at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung at quantatw.com<mailto:George.Hung at quantatw.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> Hey George,
> Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> in compute power for CI:
> 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> it with this new “gbs” machine?
Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
Qemu CI machine.
> > Thanks a lot.
> > Best Regards
> > George Hung
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openbmc