On 11/27/2016 02:29 AM, Mathias Kresin wrote:

I asked you three (!) times to _explain_ what this code should do [0][1][2]. Now I see the very same code again without having ever seen the requested explanation.

This still looks like the hackish image code that was required with the old image build system. I guess most of the stuff can be done with the existing build helpers.

To say it with easy understandable words: This patch will not be merged till I get an understandable answer what this code should do. I do not even consider doing a review before I get this answer.


[0] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002677.html [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002681.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-September/002744.html


First off I would like to apologize for whatever I've done that made you feel such an indignant reply was needed.

I'm a weekend hobbyist coder and this is my first patch set send to LEDE. This kind of stuff is not my day job. So, I would ask that you assume whatever offense I've committed was not intentional. Not up to now anyway.

Here is how I previously answered your question:

> Cameo signatures are already used by a large number of devices. This should do the same thing, but in the new makefile style. The old style was nearly incomprehensible.
> I'm not doing anything obscure here. This should be self-evident. Add a byte-aligned signature. pad-to can't do that.

Can you please clarify what of my previous reply it is that you don't understand so that I can do a better job of explaining it?

I felt at the time that this answered your question. After a second review, I am fairly certain this does answer the question as you asked it.

I am uncertain what your objection is over this makefile portion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lede-dev mailing list

Reply via email to