Re: [PATCH] binman: btool: gzip: fix packer name so that binary can be found

[Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>]

Hi Quentin,

Am 01.09.2022 um 16:34 schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 9/1/22 08:12, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> Am 31.08.2022 um 19:44 schrieb Simon Glass:
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 09:55, Quentin Schulz <foss+uboot@0leil.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@theobroma-systems.com>
>>>>
>>>> The binary is looked on the system by the suffix of the packer class.
>>>> This means binman was looking for btool_gzip on the system and not
>>>> gzip.
>>
>> Are you sure? I test it and the name is already gzip because the
>> bintool is requested as gzip. The find_bintool_class function only
>> change the class name.
>>
>
>  From current master:
> tools/binman/binman tool --list
> Name             Version      Description                Path
> ---------------  -----------  -------------------------
> ------------------------------
> btool_gzip       -            btool_gzip compression     (not found)
>
> With my patch:
> tools/binman/binman tool --list
> Name             Version      Description                Path
> ---------------  -----------  -------------------------
> ------------------------------
> gzip             1.11         gzip compression           /usr/bin/gzip
>
> Bintool.get_tool_list will return btool_gzip. Bintool.list_all will then
> iterate over all tools and call Bintool.create(name) for each.
>
> Bintool.create will call Bintool.find_bintool_class with btool_gzip and
> it'll return the Bintoolbtool_gzip class. Then its constructor will be
> called, with btool_gzip passed as argument, here:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/tools/binman/bintool.py#L111

Ok, we use different ways to test it. I use the version test and this
use a fixed gzip name as input.

> This is because Bintool.create has no knowledge of btool_gzip actually
> being gzip unlike Bintool.find_bintool_class.
>
> Another way to handle this, and without user intervention would be to
> remove btool_ prefix when listing the supported tools since
> Bintool.find_bintool_class will actually handle the case where the
> prefix is missing.

I think this is a better solution.

> It'd be something like:
Applied to u-boot-dm, thanks!