CI build for quanta/gbs

[Brandon Kim]

Apologies, one of my old patch that Quanta seemed to have been using was
finally merged (
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-hwmon/+/24337/) and
it seems like that caused the patch failure you see here.

Here is the fix that should fix the problem:
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43046

Thanks,
Brandon

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like
> sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google
> https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015
>
> The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to
> something new now?
>
>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/234/console
>
> 3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp
> Patch 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not apply
> (enforce with -f)
>
> stderr:
> ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in:
> /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOINC+6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> >
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung at quantatw.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help
> proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
> >
> > Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for
> gbs though. Please take a look at
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/
> >
> > Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> George Hung
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brandon
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim at google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> `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.
> >>
> >>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Brandon
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20210510/e47e8f1c/attachment-0001.htm>