[OpenWrt-Devel] Proposal: Differentiating "skinny" platforms from others...

[Philip Prindeville]

> On May 3, 2020, at 9:47 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think that CONFIG_SKINNY is a good concept, but for all the reasons you
> cite:
> 
> Abuse Department <abuse at redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
>> Some of us work with more current machines that are also more capable,
>> realizing that eventually machines with 32MB of DRAM and 128MB of Flash
>> will “age out” through failure and scarcity.
> 
>> By then we’ll have a new “normal” about what the minimum expectations
>> are, and the conversation will continue, but with different
>> parameters.
> 
>> Understanding that the definition of a “skinny” machine isn’t today
>> what it was 5 years ago, and that it won’t be the same again in another
>> 5 years, I’d like to proposal a CONFIG_ symbol that denotes that a
>> platform is in a class of constrained architectures.
> 
> it seems that SKINNY should be an integer of some kind, not a boolean.
> 


If we were going to do it as a scalar (or continuum), then it would make sense to do it for all platforms, even if some platforms inherited a “processor architecture” default.

-Philip


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