Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On > Behalf Of Petr Štetiar > Sent: Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2019 13:10 > To: Adrian Schmutzler <m...@adrianschmutzler.de> > Cc: 'Stijn Tintel' <st...@linux-ipv6.be>; openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org; > pozega.tomis...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ath79: add support for Ubiquiti LiteBeam > AC Gen2 > > Hi, > > > > I used the same as with other ubnt-wa devices. I'm not really up to date > > > on this metadata thing. Do we normally not include it in factory images? > > Indeed, but you've added following extra line to your device: > > IMAGE/factory.bin := $$(IMAGE/sysupgrade.bin) | mkubntimage-split > > Which means, that you're constructing factory image from sysupgrade image, and > sysupgrade images have this metadata included. I would just drop this line. > > > I'm also not sure whether we need the append-metadata, thus I wouldn't > > deviate from the other ubnt-wa devices. > > I'm sure, that there is no need for this deviation from other ubnt-wa devices.
Other ubnt-wa do this, too, they just do not define it in parent node: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/target/linux/ath79/image/generic-ubnt.mk#L127 and below that. So, the question is whether it would make sense to remove the line for all the other ubnt-wa devices, too, then. Best Adrian > > -- ynezz > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
