Hi Neha, On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 06:26, Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@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
