[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v2] ar71xx: add support for RB SXTsq 2nD

Thibaut hacks at slashdirt.org
Sun Mar 15 10:00:24 EDT 2020


> Le 15 mars 2020 à 14:20, Roger Pueyo Centelles | Guifi.net <roger.pueyo at guifi.net> a écrit :
> Hi,
>> I believe this is a waste of resources and a very suboptimal approach. I’m not sure I’m interested in spending time on this :P
> Probably it is. How would you approach it? Some devices that are the same hardware with just a different name are already supported like this: https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commit;h=ac36cca012dd1bbeea0fc4c2dc7a00941de34b52 <https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commit;h=ac36cca012dd1bbeea0fc4c2dc7a00941de34b52>

Yes, except in this case the resulting image name isn’t changed and the difference in naming is very subtle. In the case I quote below, one device is called RB 911L, the other RB SXT 2nD r3. The average user is never going to know they’re one and the same :P

That’s why I’d prefer maintaining the one-image for all devices approach, which has benefits both for the openwrt infrastructure (it scales and consumes less ressources) and for the users (« you have a mikrotik SPI NOR device? You can’t get it wrong, the image works on all of those we support »).

Considering routerboot’s lack of support for DTS, I suspect the only way to tackle this is via an intermediary loader, unless there is a specific mechanism in the kernel we could use (I’m not aware of any, but I know very little about the implementation details of DTS).

>> Some devices share the exact same hardware and differ only in (marketing) name, as evidenced by:
>> https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=5ac974f2145c770431a6eb7e006dd086b70224b1 <https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=5ac974f2145c770431a6eb7e006dd086b70224b1>
>> (this device uses the 911L platform)
>>> Just have a look at how the few ath79 devices are implemented, but note that they will be moved to a mikrotik subtarget soon as indicated by Roger already.
>> I’ve offered in this thread a couple patches to align the ath79 implementation on the existing ramips one wrt mtd partitioning and naming.
> To me they're OK, I have no preference for having the partitions nested or not. What are the benefits and drawbacks?
As was once discussed and eventually accepted (when renaming RBMxxG partitions), this is in line with the canonical way to define partitions in DTS, as documented in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partition.txt

This method is apparently used in all bcm targets, including ath79, ipq and lantiq. The aforementioned documentation says:

	For backwards compatibility partitions as direct subnodes of the flash device are
	supported. This use is discouraged.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20200315/2f75ac4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list