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

Attachment: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Reply via email to