[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 19.07] ar71xx: fix sysupgrade to ath79 for wndr3700v2 and wndr3800

Vincent Wiemann vincent.wiemann at ironai.com
Thu Oct 3 20:27:54 EDT 2019


On 01.10.19 12:07, Adrian Schmutzler wrote:
> Hi,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces at lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf Of Petr Štetiar
>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2019 06:50
>> To: mail at adrianschmutzler.de
>> Cc: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
>> Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 19.07] ar71xx: fix sysupgrade to ath79 for wndr3700v2 and wndr3800
>> mail at adrianschmutzler.de <mail at adrianschmutzler.de> [2019-09-30 22:58:22]:
>> Hi,
>>> ar71xx has so many similar cases like this, which nobody ever cared about,
>> well this case was properly reported and I got simply interested because of
>> the proposed `sysupgrade -F` "fix" in that bug report.
>>> maybe it would be easier to just deal with this in ath79 by setting
>> I've looked at this option first, then seen different NETGEAR_KERNEL_MAGIC and
>> NETGEAR_HW_ID for those device and I've thought, that fixing it with
>> SUPPORTED_DEVICES would just make the mess worse.
> I see the point, I just wasn't expecting an attempt to fix this in the very last days of ar71xx.
> Nevertheless, to support older devices, you would still have to add the "wndr3700" string to wndr3700v2 and wndr3800 in ath79 ...
>>> On the other hand, if you really think it's worth it,
>> I think, that we should avoid promoting `sysupgrade -F` as a standard upgrade
>> procedure for the obvious reasons.
> Definitely. However, I just added the "correct" name in ath79 for such cases, i.e. TP-Link WDR3600 having
> SUPPORTED_DEVICES += tl-wdr4300
> etc.
> I will have a look whether similar fixes to yours for the TP-Link devices with similar setup are reasonable or not ...
> Best
> Adrian
>> -- ynezz

I think both of your approaches work well together.
A similar case where I have trouble with this scenario are the Ubiquiti AirMax devices.
At the moment different models with different antennas share common model definitions
which makes it hard to e.g. introduce antenna_gain-definitions in DTS.
Thus it would be nice to have separate definitions for each model in ath79
even if they share the same board. A migration script in ath79 could help changing the
model definition afterwards so that e.g. a Luci Updater could find the proper image.

Are there any critical hardware differences between the devices in question?
Why do they need to be treated differently in OpenWrt?
If not the best thing could just be to do changes in ath79 only as Adrian suggested.


Vincent Wiemann

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

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list