[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/12] binman: A few more features

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 28 May 2018 at 13:17, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 04:18:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 15 May 2018 at 19:52, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> > This series ads a few more features to binman, principally the ability to
>> > nest entries within other entries, to form hierarchical images.
>> >
>> > Also included are support for a map file and some docs tidy-ups.
>> >
>> >
>> > Simon Glass (12):
>> >   binman: Allow unit addresses for binaries
>> >   binman: Refactor much of the image code into 'section'
>> >   binman: Rename ELF parameters to 'section'
>> >   binman: Rename Entry property to 'section'
>> >   binman: Avoid setting sys.path globally
>> >   binman: Add support for sections
>> >   binman: Add documentation for pos-unset property
>> >   binman: Allow a single test to be executed
>> >   binman: Tidy up some docs and comments
>> >   binman: Add support for outputing a map file
>> >   binman: Add support for adding a name prefix to entries
>> >   binman: Mark 'align-end' as implemented
>> >
>> >  tools/binman/README                           |  89 ++++-
>> >  tools/binman/binman.py                        |  24 +-
>> >  tools/binman/bsection.py                      | 318 ++++++++++++++++++
>> >  tools/binman/cmdline.py                       |   2 +
>> >  tools/binman/control.py                       |   2 +
>> >  tools/binman/elf.py                           |  10 +-
>> >  tools/binman/elf_test.py                      |  28 +-
>> >  tools/binman/{etype => }/entry.py             |  74 +++-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/_testing.py                |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/blob.py                    |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_cmc.py               |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_descriptor.py        |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_fsp.py               |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_me.py                |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_mrc.py               |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_vbt.py               |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/intel_vga.py               |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/section.py                 |  60 ++++
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot.py                  |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_dtb.py              |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_dtb_with_ucode.py   |  12 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_img.py              |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_nodtb.py            |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl.py              |   8 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_bss_pad.py      |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_dtb.py          |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_nodtb.py        |   4 +-
>> >  .../binman/etype/u_boot_spl_with_ucode_ptr.py |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_ucode.py            |  14 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/u_boot_with_ucode_ptr.py   |  20 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/x86_start16.py             |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/etype/x86_start16_spl.py         |   4 +-
>> >  tools/binman/ftest.py                         |  98 ++++--
>> >  tools/binman/image.py                         | 262 ++-------------
>> >  tools/binman/image_test.py                    |  18 +-
>> >  tools/binman/test/54_unit_address.dts         |  13 +
>> >  tools/binman/test/55_sections.dts             |  26 ++
>> >  tools/binman/test/56_name_prefix.dts          |  28 ++
>> >  38 files changed, 810 insertions(+), 372 deletions(-)
>> >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/bsection.py
>> >  rename tools/binman/{etype => }/entry.py (75%)
>> >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/etype/section.py
>> >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/54_unit_address.dts
>> >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/55_sections.dts
>> >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/56_name_prefix.dts
>>
>> Any comments on this one please?
>
> Makes sense to me.  I think you have one or two new files where the SPDX
> tags need to be moved to the first / first-possible line.  And I'd
> really like to see automating the coverage tests ;)

OK I'll take a look at the SPDX problems. For me the coverage stuff
works, so we''ll have to figure that out.

Regards,
Simon