[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 00/17] atheros: checkpatch fixes

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Sun Jul 20 14:27:27 EDT 2014

On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:51 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: 
> 2014-06-24 13:30 GMT-07:00 Daniel Gimpelevich
> <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>:
> > On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 12:38 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> I think AR231x has none of those, it's an End of Life platform, the
> >> code base has been mostly static and well know for a while, so I would
> >> argue that Device Tree should not be made a requirement here as it
> >> will just delay Sergey's upstreaming effort even more.
> >>
> > Very valuable input. Still, there is no way for software to determine
> > which AR231x board it's running on, and they all have different uses of
> > GPIO, plus the AR2317 watchdog operates completely differently from the
> > AR2315 one. What solution do you propose? Some earlier discussion:
> > http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4351/
> For GPIOs, since the way they are used most likely varies on a
> per-board basis, we could probably come up with the same mechanism as
> used on ath79 where we end-up patching the kernel command-line to
> insert a MIPS machine id for instance.
> For the watchdog driver, if we have access to a revision register we
> can read at runtime, then we could use a separate platform driver name
> (e.g: ar2315-wdt vs ar2317-wdt) that would lead to either two separate
> drivers to get registered, or have different code-paths being used in
> the same ar231x driver. In case we do not have that revision register,
> we can leverage solution 1) for GPIOs.

Wait, what is this "ath79" target?
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list