Re: Maintenance of Python tools

[Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@kernel.org>]

Hi Simon,

On mar., avril 22, 2025 at 17:39, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Tom has indicated that he would like Patman to move out of his tree. I
> suggested on another thread[1] that I maintain it in my 'sjg' tree, so
> here is a new thread to discuss this.
>
> I have already done this for the qemu/efi/coreboot scripts as Tom has
> NAK'ed patches for those.
>
> For the other tools there is going to be quite a bit of churn, as I
> would like to resolve most of the many Python warnings.
>
> Given the shared source between the tools, it would be easier for me
> to do the same for buildman, binman and qconfig. I am thinking that I
> might try a move to allow Gitlab pull-requests for reviews on these as
> well as the mailing list, if that is useful.
>
> For tools which need to sync back to Tom's tree (i.e. not patman), I
> or Tom could do a pull request every now and then, omitting any
> changes that relate to pylint.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts. The timing is good as I am going to
> be sending out a new Patman feature in the next few weeks and it is a
> few thousand more lines of code.

I have a preference for binman staying in the U-Boot upstream (Tom's)
tree. AFAIK, binman is used by the CI and is also very useful for composing
"complex" bootloader images (For example for the TI k3 architecture).
I don't know a good replacement of binman and I'm afraid that people
will go back to ad-hoc scripts if binman gets removed from the tree :(

On the other hand, patman is a workflow tool that's not (I think) that
specific to U-Boot and is (to me) replaceable by b4.

I understand that code sharing makes it more difficult to only move
buildman out of upstream, but in a perfect world, I'd like binman to
stay in upstream.

Thanks,
Mattijs

>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFLszTg7-yM0L8uuJyN7Jpsb1LbvOYO76cUWj+H719mfc97mMQ@mail.gmail.com/