[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ramips: Add support for ZBT WE1026-H

[mail at adrianschmutzler.de]

Hi,

> I prefer consistency, so my preference would be staying with the initial
> naming scheme used for this "family" of devices.

I'm all about consistency. I just scanned the image definitions in ramips:

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we1226
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBTlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE1226

define Device/zbtlink_we1026-5g-16m
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE1026-5G

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-ape522ii
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-APE522II

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-cpe102
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-CPE102

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-wa05
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WA05

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we2026
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE2026

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we826-16m
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE826
  DEVICE_VARIANT := 16M

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we826-32m
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE826
  DEVICE_VARIANT := 32M

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we826-e
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE826-E

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-wr8305rt
  DEVICE_VENDOR := Zbtlink
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WR8305RT

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we1326
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBT
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE1326

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-we3526
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBT
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WE3526

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-wg2626
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBT
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WG2626

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-wg3526-16m
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBT
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WG3526
  DEVICE_VARIANT := 16M

define Device/zbtlink_zbt-wg3526-32m
  DEVICE_VENDOR := ZBT
  DEVICE_MODEL := ZBT-WG3526
  DEVICE_VARIANT := 32M

The only device deviating from the pattern "zbtlink_zbt-something" is zbtlink_we1026-5g-16m.

So, IMO the correct solution _in terms of consistency_ would be to rename zbtlink_we1026-5g-16m to zbtlink_zbt-we1026-5g-16m and then adjust your device support for the -H to that scheme.

Do you agree? If yes, you could either implement all changes within or before your patch 1/2. Or I could send a patch for that and you rebase on it.

What do you think?

(I will send a separate patch to unify the device vendor....)

Best

Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20190924/7ff5f913/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel