Skip to content
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

[ci] Save bitstream utilization and timing reports as artifacts #319

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 5, 2024

Conversation

GregAC
Copy link
Contributor

@GregAC GregAC commented Nov 4, 2024

No description provided.

@GregAC
Copy link
Contributor Author

GregAC commented Nov 4, 2024

As @elliotb-lowrisc has pointed out this will require a change when we switch to v2024.1 as log files get renamed but I think it's worth chucking in now, will support final v1.0 work especially as timing is becoming critical.

@GregAC
Copy link
Contributor Author

GregAC commented Nov 4, 2024

Note there's no artifacts produced by CI there's no bitstream build, you can see the same change successfully producing the correct artifacts here: https://github.com/lowRISC/sonata-system/actions/runs/11655196636

Copy link
Contributor

@marnovandermaas marnovandermaas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any idea why we're getting this warning on this PR:
Warning: No files were found with the provided path: build/lowrisc_sonata_system_0/synth-vivado/lowrisc_sonata_system_0.runs/impl_1/top_sonata_timing_summary_routed.rpt

@HU90m HU90m requested review from engdoreis and nbdd0121 November 5, 2024 09:45
@GregAC
Copy link
Contributor Author

GregAC commented Nov 5, 2024

Any idea why we're getting this warning on this PR: Warning: No files were found with the provided path: build/lowrisc_sonata_system_0/synth-vivado/lowrisc_sonata_system_0.runs/impl_1/top_sonata_timing_summary_routed.rpt

Yes, that's what my comment above referred to, CI doesn't build a bitstream so it warns it can't find the artifact path. Happily (in this case) this doesn't result in a CI failure so we don't need to worry about handling this case.

Copy link
Member

@HU90m HU90m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this correctly handle the case where a bitstream isn't built (e.g. is the upload skipped)? wrote this before your last comment

@GregAC GregAC merged commit 22f0a88 into lowRISC:main Nov 5, 2024
3 checks passed
@GregAC GregAC deleted the ci_implementation_logs branch November 5, 2024 11:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants