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

[Thibaut]

Hi,

> 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.


Cheers,
Thibaut
-------------- 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
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel