On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:51 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > 2014-06-24 13:30 GMT-07:00 Daniel Gimpelevich > <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 12:38 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> I think AR231x has none of those, it's an End of Life platform, the > >> code base has been mostly static and well know for a while, so I would > >> argue that Device Tree should not be made a requirement here as it > >> will just delay Sergey's upstreaming effort even more. > >> > > Very valuable input. Still, there is no way for software to determine > > which AR231x board it's running on, and they all have different uses of > > GPIO, plus the AR2317 watchdog operates completely differently from the > > AR2315 one. What solution do you propose? Some earlier discussion: > > http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4351/ > > For GPIOs, since the way they are used most likely varies on a > per-board basis, we could probably come up with the same mechanism as > used on ath79 where we end-up patching the kernel command-line to > insert a MIPS machine id for instance. > > For the watchdog driver, if we have access to a revision register we > can read at runtime, then we could use a separate platform driver name > (e.g: ar2315-wdt vs ar2317-wdt) that would lead to either two separate > drivers to get registered, or have different code-paths being used in > the same ar231x driver. In case we do not have that revision register, > we can leverage solution 1) for GPIOs.
Wait, what is this "ath79" target? _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
