Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kernel: Define KERNEL_IMAGETYPE as a list

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 19:45 +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 07:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:29 +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> >> On 07/21/2015 10:53 PM, Christopher Larson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:23 AM, <zhe.he@windriver.com <mailto:zhe.he@windriver.com>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     From: He Zhe <zhe.he@windriver.com <mailto:zhe.he@windriver.com>>
> >>>
> >>>     To support building packaging and installing multi types of kernel
> >>>     images, such as zImage uImage, at one time define KERNEL_IMAGETYPE
> >>>     as a list.
> >>>     Modify wherever reference KERNEL_IMAGETYPE accordingly.
> >>>
> >>>     Fixes [YOCTO #6945].
> >>>
> >>>     Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe.he@windriver.com <mailto:zhe.he@windriver.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Question, why not add KERNEL_IMAGETYPES, and make KERNEL_IMAGETYPE equal to your new KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0?
> >> Adding a new KERNEL_IMAGETYPES will also work. But it should be better
> >> not to change the name of KERNEL_IMAGETYPE, so that those who have
> >> used it don't have to change their code.
> >>
> >> Thank you for reviewing.
> > I have to agree with Chris here, keeping KERNEL_IMAGETYPE as used today
> > and equivalent to KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0 and adding KERNEL_IMAGETYPES does
> > seem like a cleaner way to implement this.
> 
> But it might mean we are going to check both KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
> to generate final image type list. Is that OK?

Well, in some places you will use one and in some places you'll use the
other, that is unavoidable. 

I much prefer "KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_IMAGETYPES" to
"KERNEL_IMAGETYPE_0 and KERNEL_IMAGETYPE" as variable names though.

Cheers,

Richard