[PATCH RFC 6/6] binman: doc: update Optional entries

[Yannic Moog]

On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 06:08 -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 03:30, Yannic Moog <y.moog at phytec.de> wrote:
> > 
> > The binman documentation of Optional entries is not accurate in the
> > sense that it does not cover blobs entry type. As this is also the most
> > widely used type to have the optional entry, document the interaction
> > with faking blobs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yannic Moog <y.moog at phytec.de>
> > ---
> >  tools/binman/binman.rst | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/binman/binman.rst b/tools/binman/binman.rst
> > index 990fc295770..2bafa6ca408 100644
> > --- a/tools/binman/binman.rst
> > +++ b/tools/binman/binman.rst
> > @@ -1145,7 +1145,14 @@ called on all entries.
> >  It is not possible for an entry to mark itself absent at any other point in the
> >  processing. It must happen in the ObtainContents() method.
> > 
> > -The effect is as if the entry had never been present at all, since the image
> > +The effect depends on the type of entry.
> > +
> > +Blobs
> > +~~~~~
> > +For blobs, the effect depends on whether --fake-ext-blobs is passed
> > +to binman. (This is the case by default)
> > +In case --fake-ext-blobs is set, any missing entries will be faked.
> > +If not set, it is as if the entry had never been present at all, since the image
> >  is packed without it and it disappears from the list of entries.
> 
> I'm not quite following this. The text seems OK but your heading
> implies that things other than blobs can be faked. All of this
> functionality is only for blobs.

The heading is a subsection of "Optional entries". To my knowledge the "optional" property is not
limited to blobs. But blobs get special treatment in regards to "optional" due to the --fake-ext-
blobs option. Hence the subsection.

What would you like me to change to make this clearer?

Yannic

> 
> Regards,
> Simon