Hi Simon, On 11/7/22 4:28 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Quentin,On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 07:25, Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On 11/6/22 23:40, Simon Glass wrote: >> At present only the image (which is a section) has a filename. Move this >> implementation to the entry_Section class so that any section can have a >> filename. With this, the section data is written to a file. >> >> This allows parts of an image to be written, along with the entire image. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> (no changes since v1) >> >> tools/binman/binman.rst | 5 +++++ >> tools/binman/etype/section.py | 12 +++++++++- >> tools/binman/ftest.py | 14 ++++++++++++ >> tools/binman/image.py | 3 --- >> tools/binman/test/261_section_fname.dts | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/261_section_fname.dts >> >> diff --git a/tools/binman/binman.rst b/tools/binman/binman.rst >> index fda16f1992d..79578ff127b 100644 >> --- a/tools/binman/binman.rst >> +++ b/tools/binman/binman.rst >> @@ -837,6 +837,11 @@ name-prefix: >> renamed to 'ro-u-boot' and 'rw-u-boot'. This can be useful to >> distinguish binaries with otherwise identical names. >> >> +filename: >> + This allows the contents of the section to be written to a file in the >> + output directory. This can sometimes be useful to use the data in one >> + section in different image, since there is currently no way to share data >> + beteen images other than through files. >> > > IIRC, this is currently incorrect until we have inter-image dependencies > since binman is building images in parallel by default. Suggesting this > is a possible use-case is at beast misleading. For me, this is only > useful for archiving embedded binaries, e.g. what we did for > idbloader.img for Rockchip lately (which is "needed" only to keep the > 3rd party tutorials/documentation not outdated). > > Maybe I missed some recent development that fixes this, lemme know if > that's the case or if my assumptions are wrong. Images themselves are built one after the other, so far as I know: for image in images.values(): invalid |= ProcessImage(image, args.update_fdt, args.map, allow_missing=args.allow_missing, allow_fake_blobs=args.fake_ext_blobs) WIthin each image Binman tries to build everything in parallel if possible, but it is currently possible to use the outputs of one image in a subsequent one.
That seems right indeed. ProcessImage uses OrderedDict internally. Just need to trust that the parsing of the DTB is reproducible too but I guess that's fine. This also explains why you didn't change the u-boot-rockchip-spi.bin image generation I complained about in another review. I'm a bit scared that implicitly relying images being sequentially created is not going to bite us back in the future once/if we do parallel building of images. I guess this is fine then :) Cheers, Quentin
