[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [mpc83xx] add menuconfig-option for rb333 and rb600

[Claudio Thomas]

On 25.07.2014 12:25, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:34:49 +0200, Claudio Thomas
> <ct at xmodus-systems.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi, as reaction of the following email:
>> On 15.07.2014 15:05, Claudio Thomas wrote:
>>> Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] When to use Target Profile or Subtarget
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm adapting the "Freescale MPC83xx" platform, so that multiple devices
>>> can be selected.
>>> Actually the following boards are in use, but hard-coded over files or
>>> file-patches and not selectable be "menuconfig"
>>> - RouterBOARD 333
>>> - RouterBOARD 600
>>> This makes it unnecessary difficult to add new devices...
>> ...I've wrote the in the subject mentioned patch (2014-07-21 15:48:12).
>> Is there a reason why the patch is not committed yet?
>> Should I change anything, like make only one profile for rb333+rb600 or
>> is the coding style not as whiched?
>>
>> I would be glad to adapt the patch to be conform to the needs of
>> OpenWrt.
>> My goal is, that I would like to add the following boards:
>> http://www.xmodus-systems.de/en/terminals/routers.html
>> But to add them, it is necessary that the compilation of the kernelnames
>> "dtbImage.rb600 dtbImage.rb333" needs to be conditional. Actually they
>> are unconditional.
>>
>> So, I'm glad to hear your comments what I could make better ob my
>> changes or maybe also, why I should not change it at all.
>
> I see no technical reason why would it be required to make them
> conditional nor why would it be difficult to add new devices - so what
> are your problems?
Hm, maybe the problem it's in me :-) and I'm to new to the openwrt project.

The last time I've checked the compilation with included "dtbImage.rb600
dtbImage.rb333" I were still running in compilation errors. This are
already several month ago (r37942). The workaround at that time was to
simple remove them from the Makefiles. The point is, that the board
needs a different kernel and also a different package set. So my
conclusion at that time was that if I already need a new target and
profile I should encapsulate those "kernelnames" also in a profile. And
this was my approach now: at first to encapsulate those "kernelnames",
than add a new target with profile definition, so that a clean (step by
step) integration of the need changes could be done.

Your Answer, that you don't see a technical reason for a conditional...
makes me assume that the conclusion was wrong and that there must be a
better way or that there is an error in the changes/implementations.

I'm going to re-analyse the problem, so that I can give you a better
answer to "what are the problems" that occur when both kernelnames exist
in the makefile.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Claudio
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel