On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 23:30, Christian Marangi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:08:43PM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > On 28/06/2022 23:41, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > > As the title said, it was suggested to move the ipq-wifi package > > > board file to a separate repo. > > > > ipq-wifi Makefile is painfully self aware in that regard. > > > > | 20 # This is intended to be used on an interim basis until > > device-specific > > | 21 # board data for new devices is available through the upstream > > compilation > > | 22 # > > | 23 # Please send a mail with your device-specific board files upstream. > > | 24 # You can find instructions and examples on the linux-wireless wiki: > > | 25 # > > <https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/boardfiles> > > > > My "go-to" solution was to point people to this notice, provided them with > > the example/template and wait for a mail to show up on ath10k-devel before > > merging the "new device" PRs. If OpenWrt starts a repo for boardfiles, that > > maintainer would be left holding the bag for upstreaming the files > > themselves. > > > > So in a way, that separate repo exists in Kalle's > > https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware and the upstream linux-firmware.git
Well, that is the ideal place, but let's remember that last time it took him a year to merge new BDF-s. So, as a staging ground moving the BDF-s to a new GIT repo under the OpenWrt umbrella looks good to me. But we should really enforce requiring people to send BDF-s upstream before the boards are merged, with the exception of MikroTik IPQ40xx devices that have the BDF-s extracted from flash during runtime. Regards, Robert > > > > As for moving the eye-sores to a separate repository: If the (group) of > > people which suggested the move wants to do it for the duration: > > Sure, why not? > > > > If they welcome ideas and random thoughts: > > > > Kalle extended the public/open-source ath10k-bdencoder tool with an > > "--add-mbox" (parses mbox/mails) and "--commit" (commit it to a git repo) > > options. Maybe this could be of some use? > > > > Yes, this would essentially create one big board-2.bin for each QCAXXXX > > variant. But this might not be that bad, because the file can simply be > > shipped for all non-upstreamed devices instead of the individual > > ipq-wifi-$device packages we have now. > > > > Regards, > > Christian > > I see your point... Ideally we should all submit the board... > I like the idea of creating a big board-2.bin > Would also prepare things when the board is actually pushed upstream... > > Will see what I can do... Also curious of the delay in submitting a > board file and have that merged in ath10k-firmware. > > -- > Ansuel > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
