On 2018-09-13 1:12 p.m., Lech Perczak wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Answers inline.
Thanks but for *policy* questions I prefer answers from voting
committers like Mathias Kresin (who has been working on herding ath79).
W dniu 2018-09-12 o 04:24, Daniel F. Dickinson pisze:
Hi,
I'm having trouble finding a concise summary of what is the policy
for using multiple leds for boot/failsafe, etc status (in this case
updating CAP324 to use both colours of the 'power' led, now that such
logic in in ath79 tree).
Also are leds supposed to be named according to manufacturer or
according to model number (presuming that for ath79 we don't care
about using the same led names as for ar71xx)?
IIRC most targets use same names as for ar71xx. I'd go and review a
few other device trees for supported devices and check that, to
maintain consistency across the target.
I'd prefer to know what is wanted vs. what folks have done with minimal
review; in fact it might be reason to go through and do some cleanup, as
I don't think that either has been consistently applied.
Also pursuant to https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/1062 should
CAP324 be DHCP or a static IP on it's only wired interface? (It's an
AP).
Since no decision regarding that PR was made by maintainers yet, I
believe the old policy is still in effect. I don't think that your
changes should depend on this one, and IMHO consistency is more
important here.
Again, the reason I put this on this list was for what maintainers want,
and hopefully prodding for some clarity before ath79 turns into ar71xx
(which is quite a mess) only with DT.
Regards,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
