[PATCH v2] binman: bintool: remove btool_ prefix from btool names

[Simon Glass]

Hi Quentin,

On Sat, 3 Sept 2022 at 02:48, Quentin Schulz <foss at 0leil.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On September 2, 2022 10:00:18 PM GMT+02:00, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >Hi Quentin,
> >
> >On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 08:44, Quentin Schulz <foss+uboot at 0leil.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at theobroma-systems.com>
> >>
> >> The binary is looked on the system by the suffix of the packer class.
> >> This means binman was looking for btool_gzip on the system and not gzip.
> >>
> >> Since a btool can have its btool_ prefix missing but its module and
> >> binary presence on the system appropriately found, there's no need to
> >> actually keep this prefix after listing all possible btools, so let's
> >> remove it.
> >>
> >> This fixes gzip btool by letting Bintool.find_bintool_class handle the
> >> missing prefix and still return the correct class which is then init
> >> with gzip name instead of btool_gzip.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0f369d79925a ("binman: Add gzip bintool")
> >> Cc: Quentin Schulz <foss+u-boot at 0leil.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at theobroma-systems.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/binman/bintool.py | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> >Do we still need this patch? Please see u-boot-dm/testing
> >
>
> Since you took the V1, no. Either version  is fine IMO though the second version would have been a cleaner approach when a second btool prefixed with btool_ will appear (if that ever happens).

Hmm I cannot find v1. Can you please send the patchwork link?

Or perhaps just a new patch against dm/testing would sort this out?

>
> I might carve some time to rename all btools to have btool_ as prefix and remove the prefix as done in this patch before use, so that we simplify things a bit.

I think tools with Python-module equivalents will be an uncommon case,
so it seems better to keep the special-casing code.

Regards,
Simon