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

Simon Glass sjg at chromium.org
Mon Aug 28 19:54:55 CEST 2023

Hi Alper,

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 13:17, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-08-24 06:02 +03:00, 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'
> >
> > But unusual extensions appear in some places.
> >
> > We would like 'buildman -k' to keep the build outputs, but this is hard if
> > there is no consistency as to the extension used.
> >
> > This series adjusts binman to enforce just 4 extensions for output images:
> >
> >    .bin
> >    .rom
> >    .itb
> >    .img
> >
> > Other extensions will produce an error. With this rule observed, buildman
> > can keep the required files.
> I dislike this limitation. We know what files we will generate, they are
> listed in binman dtb, so we can add something like `binman build --ls`
> to print their names/paths for buildman to preserve them.

Yes, it would be good to have that...

But why do you dislike the limitation? Do you think extensions provide
useful information? I suppose one problem is that *.bin might pick up
private blobs that happen to be in the source directory?

> Regarding the output directory suggestion, I think the binman outputs
> (not temporary/intermediate files) should be in the same directory as
> make outputs


>, and the Makefile should default to O=build to achieve the
> "output dir". I'm not sure if that's going to happen.

I would quite like the 'non-output' file (i.e. things that are not a
binman image) to appear in a 'binman-work' subdir of the output dir.
What do you think?


More information about the U-Boot mailing list