On 23.01.2012 15:30, Jonas Gorski wrote: > [...] > This all belongs into a seperate patch and has nothing to do with > updating at91 to 3.2.1 (which you also do in this patch). ok, as 'original' MMnet1000 patch is not included in the tree my idea was to do it from scratch to replace the previous/base patch. If I get your point correctly, at first the previous patch should be applied, then the new one should include only updates since then.
> > Unless you mean this patch is supposed to update only MMnet1000 to > 3.2.1, then this patch clearly doesn't and implicitly updates most > other subtargets to 3.2.1, too. I don't think you will be able to just > have on subtarget on 3.2 and the others on 2.6.38, since the patches > won't apply to both. Yes, it does not seem to be possible without touching other targets. I propose an update to 3.2.1 (incremental from original patch) that will be put on hold on the mail list till other targets are ready. What about: - 1st patch - incremental (from old patch) that covers only kernel+config - 2nd patch - changes to current OpenWrt target allowing the 1st patch to be used (but will break other targets) Is that fine? _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
