Hi, (comments below)
On Friday 17 September 2010 12:09:06 Maxim Osipov wrote: > Hi All! > > Any other comments? Is it a must to move to at91 or it can be standalone > target? Is something else necessary to get this patch committed? > > Regards, > Maxim > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Maxim Osipov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Imre Kaloz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:16:02 +0200, Maxim Osipov > >> <[email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >>> target/linux/flexibity > >> > >> Why a new target? It seems to be an AT91 board. Integrate it there. > > > > IMHO OpenWRT target is more like a platform rather then an > > architecture. I.e. it defines kernel configuration (specific to a > > board, not processor), default packages, etc. > > > > So in my opinion it is logical to have a separate target for each > > supported board. Or there is some other possibility to have a > > board-level configuration? This is what profiles and subtargets are for. Right now we use subtargets when a single board support can run, with say, two different endianness (like malta and adm5120), or different kind of root filesystems (see how it is done for ixp4xx). Profiles can allow you to provide a different kernel configuration as well, but a subtarget might be more adequate. > > > > Kind regards, > > Maxim > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
