[PATCH] firmware-utils: tplink-safeloader: Add support for Deco M4R V4
sander at svanheule.net
Sat Jan 28 11:01:39 PST 2023
On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 18:19 +0100, Shiz wrote:
> Hi Sander,
> Thanks for reviewing my patch!
> > On 28 Jan Reiwa 5, at 17:09, Sander Vanheule <sander at svanheule.net> wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > On Sun, 2023-01-22 at 12:46 +0100, Mark Ceeha wrote:
> > > Software version:
> > > soft_ver:1.0.3 Build 20220426 Rel. 32976
> > I assume this is the FW image you've based this on?
> My bad, this is the firmware version of the M4R that I upgraded;
> this patch was based on the following firmware image:
> soft_ver:1.0.2 Build 20220401 Rel. 35920
> I just cross-referenced and confirmed it to match with the following
> initial firmware version I hadn't found before:
> soft_ver:1.0.0 Build 20211202 Rel. 69482
> If preferred, I can include that version in the commit message instead.
The software version in the commit message, if included, should correspond to
the one(s) you used to extract this info from, or test factory installs with.
I was mostly wondering because it didn't match the version below.
> > > [...]
> > This is different from the version above. Does the device require this
> > version
> > as a lower bound? Normally, usage of SOFT_VER_DEFAULT is preferred.
> As it was the version of the firmware image I researched,
> which is the initial firmware release, I figured it was a safe lower bound.
> TP-Link's own firmware expects it to be in the _TEXT format and >= current
> to allow the upgrade, but U-Boot does not care.
If a larger-or-equal version number is required, it's probably best to take
something that will last a while. That way you don't have to send a patch every
time TP-Link releases a new FW version. There are examples of 1.1.0, 2.0.0, or
even 7.0.0. Add a note in the commit message why it needs to be higher than the
Because installing OpenWrt will bump the version stored on flash, a user may not
be able to install another TP-Link image after reverting from OpenWrt. Unless a
TP-Link FW with at least that version exists, they would have to resort to other
means (e.g. another OpenWrt-vendor cycle, or tftp) to upgrade their device.
That's probably something you want to note in the install instructions for the
device, although there may not be that many users running into this issue...
More information about the openwrt-devel