[OpenWrt-Devel] ath79 policy questions

Daniel F. Dickinson cshore at thecshore.com
Fri Sep 14 16:58:57 EDT 2018

On 2018-09-13 1:12 p.m., Lech Perczak wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> Answers inline.

Thanks but for *policy* questions I prefer answers from voting 
committers like Mathias Kresin (who has been working on herding ath79).

> W dniu 2018-09-12 o 04:24, Daniel F. Dickinson pisze:
>> Hi,
>> I'm having trouble finding a concise summary of what is the policy 
>> for using multiple leds for boot/failsafe, etc status (in this case 
>> updating CAP324 to use both colours of the 'power' led, now that such 
>> logic in in ath79 tree).
>> Also are leds supposed to be named according to manufacturer or 
>> according to model number (presuming that for ath79 we don't care 
>> about using the same led names as for ar71xx)?
> IIRC most targets use same names as for ar71xx. I'd go and review a 
> few other device trees for supported devices and check  that, to 
> maintain consistency across the target.
I'd prefer to know what is wanted vs. what folks have done with minimal 
review; in fact it might be reason to go through and do some cleanup, as 
I don't think that either has been consistently applied.
>> Also pursuant to https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/1062 should 
>> CAP324 be DHCP or a static IP on it's only wired interface?  (It's an 
>> AP).
> Since no decision regarding that PR was made by maintainers yet, I 
> believe the old policy is still in effect. I don't think that your 
> changes should depend on this one, and IMHO consistency is more 
> important here.

Again, the reason I put this on this list was for what maintainers want, 
and hopefully prodding for some clarity before ath79 turns into ar71xx 
(which is quite a mess) only with DT.



openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list