Hi Neha, On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 21:41, Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon > > On 11/03/23 07:17, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Neha, > > > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 03:51, Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> wrote: > >> > >> Currently, bintool supports external compilable tools as single > >> executable files. Adding support for git repos that can be used to run > >> non-compilable scripting tools that cannot otherwise be present in > >> binman. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> > >> --- > >> Changes in v3: > >> - moved back to using DOWNLOAD_DIR as community is making > >> relevant changes > >> - extended coverage for bintool_test.py > >> - added function comment for new parameter > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - added parameter to obtain path to download the directory > >> optionally, enables flexibility to avoid using > >> DOWNLOAD_DESTDIR > >> - added test to bintool_test.py > >> - s/FETCH_NO_BUILD/FETCH_SOURCE > >> - code reformatting > >> > >> tools/binman/bintool.py | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > >> tools/binman/bintool_test.py | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> tools/binman/btool/_testing.py | 4 +++ > >> tools/patman/tools.py | 2 +- > >> 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > I am OK with doing this but worried that it will be used for shell > > scripts, which we are trying to avoid. > > > > The code looks OK for now. Perhaps we can revisit this when we have a > > use case? I also think we should have each tool individually shown in > > the list, rather than having them be 'hidden' behind a btool. > > > > I get the intention, let me know your reply to our thread [1] and we can > work on it from there.
OK I replied to that. - Simon > [1] > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230224120340.587786-1-n-fran...@ti.com/ > > -- > Thanking You > Neha Malcom Francis