Hi Adrian, On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:22 PM <m...@adrianschmutzler.de> wrote: > I'm all about consistency. I just scanned the image definitions in ramips: > > ... > > The only device deviating from the pattern "zbtlink_zbt-something" is > zbtlink_we1026-5g-16m. > > So, IMO the correct solution _in terms of consistency_ would be to rename > zbtlink_we1026-5g-16m to zbtlink_zbt-we1026-5g-16m and then adjust your > device support for the -H to that scheme. > > Do you agree? If yes, you could either implement all changes within or before > your patch 1/2. Or I could send a patch for that and you rebase on it. > > What do you think?
I am fine with either approach. I will not have time to look at this device again before the weekend, so I will take whatever is in the tree then and rebase + apply fixes. If you patch has not been accepted/merged, I will change the naming of the 1026-devices. BR, Kristian _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
