[PATCH 1/2 v2] filetype: add Binary PacKage BPK type

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 09:34 Tue 24 Sep     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fargier Sylvain <sylvain.fargier at somfy.com>
> > > ---
> > >  common/filetype.c  | 3 +++
> > >  include/filetype.h | 1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/common/filetype.c b/common/filetype.c
> > > index 59ea25a..ef4452d 100644
> > > --- a/common/filetype.c
> > > +++ b/common/filetype.c
> > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static const struct filetype_str filetype_str[] = {
> > >  	[filetype_png] = { "PNG image", "png" },
> > >  	[filetype_ext] = { "ext filesystem", "ext" },
> > >  	[filetype_gpt] = { "GUID Partition Table", "gpt" },
> > > +	[filetype_bpk] = { "Binary PacKage", "bpk" },
> > 
> > Can we have "Somfy Binary PacKage" here? As this file format is rather
> > exoctic I want to make sure we still know what this is in a few years.
> > Was the CamelCase 'PacKage' intended?
> We drop the Somfy to make it more generic and everyone can use it
> as everything is published

In this case it might be useful to have some pointers *why* someone
should use it. To me it looks like a custom cpio format. What's the
advantage of using this instead of cpio or even uImage?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |