[U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Don't run patman when it is imported as a module

[Simon Glass]

Hi Chris,

On 1 August 2015 at 03:32, Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 30 July 2015 at 23:34, Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> Commit 488d19c (patman: add distutils based installer) has the side effect
>>>> of making patman run twice with each invocation. Fix this by checking for
>>>> 'main program' invocation in patman.py. This is good practice in any case.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I did (kind of) think about that at the time when I had to handle the
>>> in-tree vs out-of-tree usage. One solution would have been to move
>>> most of the code to a module ("patch-manager" say) and have the patman
>>> script import that. The same would work for anything else that wanted
>>> to bring in bits of patman (buildman perhaps?).
>>
>> Ah OK. We could do this, but what is the benefit? Buildman currently
>> imports the particular modules it needs and doesn't use the top-level
>> tool.
>>
>
> That may play into the de-coupling of u-boot and patman. Some of these
> common bits could be yet another re-usable component that both patman
> and buildman use. But then you'd have to come up with a name for such
> a component which we all know is a NP-hard problem :).
>
> I haven't really looked at buildman and only have a vague
> understanding of what it does. Do you think it too would be useful
> outside of u-boot?

Potentially although it would be a bit of work. How many projects
build for 1000 boards and want to collate common bisectability errors
between them?

Regards,
Simon