On 2/7/25 8:40 AM, Alexander Dahl wrote:
Hi Marek,
had a short look on your script yesterday. Looks clean and well
designed, nice job.
Am Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 09:38:58PM +0100 schrieb Marek Vasut:
On 2/6/25 1:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 07:37, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote:
Add implementation of mkenvimage written purely in bourne shell.
This is not a replacement for mkenvimage tool, but rather a simple
implementation which can be used in environments where mkenvimage
itself cannot be deployed due to various constraints, like hardware
manufacturing plants, but where bourne shell and basic tool are
already available.
The external dependencies which are not shell built-ins are gzip
and grep.
All mkenvimage parameters are implemented and compatible with the
C implementation of mkenvimage.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
---
Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com>
Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
---
tools/mkenvimage.sh | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 126 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tools/mkenvimage.sh
Would it be worth adding a simple test for this?
Sure, is there an existing test for similar case I can look at ?
I thought about testing yesterday, but had no good idea on top, but
now it's discussed anyways … How about throwing the same input
at the c and the sh version and assert the output is the same? For
more sophisticated tests it should be tested with both variants.
I do have local shell script which does exactly that -- feed inputs into
both mkenvimage C and SH variants and compare the checksum of results.
