On Jul 20, 2014 11:27 AM, "Daniel Gimpelevich" < [email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
Meant to write ar71xx, the upstream Linux name for it is ath79 from arch/mips/ > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
