[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] bcm63xx: Livebox1: reenable the image generation

[Daniel González Cabanelas]

Hi Adrian,

El dom., 17 may. 2020 a las 19:00, <mail at adrianschmutzler.de> escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces at lists.openwrt.org]
> > On Behalf Of Daniel González Cabanelas
> > Sent: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2020 18:52
> > To: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> > Cc: noltari at gmail.com
> > Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] bcm63xx: Livebox1: reenable the image
> > generation
> >
> > This old BCM6348 device still runs quite fine with OpenWrt snapshots when
> > the board is modded with 64MB of RAM.
> >
> > Reenable the image generation and advertise the mod in the image filename
>
> OpenWrt does not officially support modded devices. If you require something like that, just build the appropriate image yourself.

I was't aware of that rule. I thought this project was engaged with
the spirit of hacking (software or hardware). Furthermore, one of
features which leaded Openwrt success was the hardware modding.
Without hardware modding a lot of devices couldn't be supported. This
fact has no discussion for me.

Appart from that, this is the only one device in the bcm63xx target
with Redboot support. Without the image generation it will be
difficult to test otherwise. Therefore the support should be also
dropped for this kernel subtarget if no one cares about testing the
snapshot images appart from me. This is a bit sad, but would make more
sense.

Of course I can build my own images. But I don't make tests or fix
issues on this device only for myself but also for others. So, with no
image generation I will probably stop testing snapshots on this
device. As a result of this, I won't either detect and fix other
issues on this target as I made in the past.

> Despite that, I don't think the way you modify the image name would fit the naming logic on that target very well.

Not sure about what's wrong with this naming logic. I made it the most
concise and less disruptive I could.

Regards.

Daniel.

>
> I will mark this patch as Rejected. Sorry.
>
> Best
>
> Adrian
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel González Cabanelas <dgcbueu at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  target/linux/bcm63xx/image/bcm63xx.mk | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/linux/bcm63xx/image/bcm63xx.mk
> > b/target/linux/bcm63xx/image/bcm63xx.mk
> > index d5601e2c3c..1e5b0b9776 100644
> > --- a/target/linux/bcm63xx/image/bcm63xx.mk
> > +++ b/target/linux/bcm63xx/image/bcm63xx.mk
> > @@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ define Device/inventel_livebox-1
> >    DEVICE_MODEL := Livebox 1
> >    SOC := bcm6348
> >    DEVICE_PACKAGES := $(B43_PACKAGES) $(USB1_PACKAGES)
> > -  DEFAULT := n
> > +  IMAGE_NAME = $$(IMAGE_PREFIX)-64RAM_mod-$$(1).$$(2)
> >  endef
> >  TARGET_DEVICES += inventel_livebox-1
> >
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openwrt-devel mailing list
> > openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel