[PATCH 0/6] Attempt to enforce standard extensions for build output

[Simon Glass]

Hi Neha,

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 06:26, Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis at ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon
>
> + Vignesh, Nishanth to comment on this as well
>
> On 24/08/23 08:32, Simon Glass wrote:
> > In this early stage of using binman to produce output files, we are mostly
> > seeing people using common extensions such as '.bin' and '.rom'
>
> [...]
>
> > The fact that the .pem files are at the top level means that they are
> > output images, which surely is not intended. They should be buried in the
> > image description, at a lower level, as part of something else.
> >
> > So please take a loke at the above and see if the binman descriptions can
> > be reworked slightly to follow these new rules.
> >
>
> I think this can work... but few concerns.
>
> 1. Our output binaries also include <image>.bin_unsigned, would extensions that
> aren't "standard" be added to the list if they are truly output binaries? If
> not, changing names for them may be a long stretch (pinging Vignesh and Nishanth
> to comment here).

How about changing them to image-unsigned.bin ? That is a convention I
am trying to follow...so we have the file type last.

>
> 2. Can it be an option to not enforce this, to support users that may make use
> of the intermediate binaries?

This does not apply to sections within an image, which can still
produce files. But those files won't be preserved by buildman unless
they have a supported extension.

>
> Also if we do move forward with this, we will need to sync to make sure that the
> changes to the affected boards come through as well.

Yes.

Regards,
Simon