-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
build: wifi: allow espressif boards to test net/wifi use cases #80785
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
build: wifi: allow espressif boards to test net/wifi use cases #80785
Conversation
264b271
to
e00ed56
Compare
The following west manifest projects have changed revision in this Pull Request:
⛔ DNM label due to: 2 projects with PR revision Note: This message is automatically posted and updated by the Manifest GitHub Action. |
42bd0e8
to
95b4643
Compare
@krish2718 @dleach02 As you can see in this PR (commit bd260a9), I have aimed to consolidate the Please, let me know your thoughts about both. I think that we could rename
@carlescufi PTAL. |
PR was updated with the common |
drivers/wifi/Kconfig
Outdated
@@ -35,6 +35,13 @@ config WIFI_USE_NATIVE_NETWORKING | |||
When selected, this hidden configuration enables Wi-Fi driver | |||
to use native ethernet stack interface. | |||
|
|||
config BUILD_ONLY_NO_BLOBS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess drivers/wifi/Kconfig
is the wrong place for this, now that it's completely generic. Perhaps modules/Kconfig
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Btw, while I know I suggested the option name, I'm a little bit hesitant about it, since it's easily read as "Build only <something>", i.e. only "something" should be built, which is different from the actual meaning. Alternatives that come to mind are BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
, BLOB_STUBS
, or NO_BLOBS
. (sorry for adding extra hassle with this, but I think it's better to get the name right from the beginning rather than having to fix it when something has already been merged). I also don't have a super strong opinion here, i.e. if others think that BUILD_ONLY_NO_BLOBS
is clear enough, then I won't object :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Of course, I need to move it out of wifi
section.
My initial suggestion as described in this PR was CONFIG_BUILD_WITH_NO_BLOBS
. Sounds CONFIG_BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
is even better. Are you ok with it? I can rename it again and wait for feedbacks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
is fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
is fine, ONLY
was added to imply that this is build-only
and cannot be used on a real board for testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
is fine,ONLY
was added to imply that this isbuild-only
and cannot be used on a real board for testing.
Yeah, that was my idea when I proposed it, but then I realized that when you try to read it as normal English it's mildly confusing. Either way is fine with me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, as long as we output a clear warning during build, I think that should do the job of informing the user that the result is something non-functional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Considering the commments above, I would keep as is: BUILD_ONLY_NO_BLOBS
.
There is a big warning banner during build that states that it is not for real-world operation, but, BUILD_WITHOUT_BLOBS
leaves a bit of margin to bad interpretation as it sounds to "work" without blobs.
@sylvioalves some rebasing is needed. I'd be happy to approve once the Kconfig option has been moved away from its current wifi-specific location. |
I was expecting |
Convert vendor specific **_WIFI_BUILD_ONLY_MODE symbol as global in order to provide common build flag to enable CI with no blobs. Signed-off-by: Sylvio Alves <[email protected]>
Add stubs to allow building Wi-Fi interface without binary blobs. Only for CI tests. Update ESP32 Wi-Fi kconfig entry accordingly. Signed-off-by: Sylvio Alves <[email protected]>
Allow espressif platform to be properly tested in CI. Signed-off-by: Sylvio Alves <[email protected]>
This lets esp32-based boards to be tested regarding Wi-Fi changes. Signed-off-by: Sylvio Alves <[email protected]>
e59899c
269d00b
to
e59899c
Compare
This PR is tricky because we don't want to merge the NXP HAL until this one is fully ready to merge. There are a lot of NXP HAL PRs that need to be synchronized. The ESP hal PR has merged so I would update this PR with the SHA. @jukkar seems to have one request yet on a kconfig change, has that been done? |
We can wait another round of approval and sync up when you feel confortable merging hal_nxp PR. I do not see any additional request. |
@dleach02 I've rebased |
@dleach02, are you able to move on with this? Do you expect anything else from my side? |
This aims to allow Espressif boards to test Wi-Fi drivers without binary blobs. The following changes were added:
NRF_WIFI_BUILD_ONLY_MODE
andNXP_WIFI_BUILD_ONLY_MODE
to use the same common Kconfig nameBUILD_ONLY_NO_BLOBS
.hal_nxp
andhal_espressif
to support the above change. Include espressif Wi-Fi RF stubs.net
tests.