Hi Heiko, On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 00:38, Heiko Thiery <heiko.thi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > Am Fr., 20. Aug. 2021 um 20:22 Uhr schrieb Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > Hi Heiko, > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 00:49, Heiko Thiery <heiko.thi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > During the discussion on [1] I had the idea if binman could create a > > > list of all output files, so that it is possible to do a real clean in > > > the u-boot makefile. > > > > > > Currently there are not all binaries listed in the files list and > > > especially during the port of some boards to binman we had some > > > trouble due to fragments of old/previous builds. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Yes i like this. Perhaps something like: > > > > binman ls-files output - to list output files > > > > We could also create a binman.filelist file in the target directory. > > > > The interesting question is how to implement it. It might be best to > > add a new method to Entry() which returns a list of output filenames. > > Then we can simply call all the entries recursively to get the list, > > as we do with other things today. > > > > The other issue is temporary files, which are currently lumped into > > the same output dir. One day I think we should distinguish between > > output files that produce something useful and files that are just > > there for debugging (e.g. the input file used for compression or > > signing). The latter could go in a separate binman-working/ directory > > inside the output dir, and could be removed wholesale. > > > I tried to dig into the binman code. one possible point to remember > the output files could be the tools function GetOutputFilename from > patman. For this you could use a binman wrapper function that > remembers the files. But this only works if the "output_files" would > be saved when creating the image. a standalone binman option to list > the output files doesn't work then. but this way you would have an > automatic list with all (image and temporary) files.
Yes, I think that could work in the short term but I don't really think it is worth it. We need a way to determine in advance what files will be written, or determine it without actually writing. For temp files, should we keep a list? Or would it be OK to put them all in a subdir? At the moment we use tmpname so the filenames are quite strange. > > Is it correct that the output files are created in BuildImage() and > all other (like mkimage.*.mkimage) files are only the temporary ones? For a narrow definition of output files, yes. I think that could work. There is also the map file. We could have a thing in state.py to keep a list of output files, perhaps. It should be possible to add an option to dry run and not produce output, just the list. Regards, Simon
