Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [mpc83xx] add menuconfig-option for rb333 and rb600
Hi, as reaction of the following email: On 15.07.2014 15:05, Claudio Thomas wrote: Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] When to use Target Profile or Subtarget Hi, I'm adapting the Freescale MPC83xx platform, so that multiple devices can be selected. Actually the following boards are in use, but hard-coded over files or file-patches and not selectable be menuconfig - RouterBOARD 333 - RouterBOARD 600 This makes it unnecessary difficult to add new devices... ...I've wrote the in the subject mentioned patch (2014-07-21 15:48:12). Is there a reason why the patch is not committed yet? Should I change anything, like make only one profile for rb333+rb600 or is the coding style not as whiched? I would be glad to adapt the patch to be conform to the needs of OpenWrt. My goal is, that I would like to add the following boards: http://www.xmodus-systems.de/en/terminals/routers.html But to add them, it is necessary that the compilation of the kernelnames dtbImage.rb600 dtbImage.rb333 needs to be conditional. Actually they are unconditional. So, I'm glad to hear your comments what I could make better ob my changes or maybe also, why I should not change it at all. Best regards, Claudio ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [mpc83xx] add menuconfig-option for rb333 and rb600
Hi, On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:34:49 +0200, Claudio Thomas c...@xmodus-systems.de wrote: Hi, as reaction of the following email: On 15.07.2014 15:05, Claudio Thomas wrote: Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] When to use Target Profile or Subtarget Hi, I'm adapting the Freescale MPC83xx platform, so that multiple devices can be selected. Actually the following boards are in use, but hard-coded over files or file-patches and not selectable be menuconfig - RouterBOARD 333 - RouterBOARD 600 This makes it unnecessary difficult to add new devices... ...I've wrote the in the subject mentioned patch (2014-07-21 15:48:12). Is there a reason why the patch is not committed yet? Should I change anything, like make only one profile for rb333+rb600 or is the coding style not as whiched? I would be glad to adapt the patch to be conform to the needs of OpenWrt. My goal is, that I would like to add the following boards: http://www.xmodus-systems.de/en/terminals/routers.html But to add them, it is necessary that the compilation of the kernelnames dtbImage.rb600 dtbImage.rb333 needs to be conditional. Actually they are unconditional. So, I'm glad to hear your comments what I could make better ob my changes or maybe also, why I should not change it at all. I see no technical reason why would it be required to make them conditional nor why would it be difficult to add new devices - so what are your problems? Best regards, Imre ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [mpc83xx] add menuconfig-option for rb333 and rb600
On 25.07.2014 12:25, Imre Kaloz wrote: Hi, On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:34:49 +0200, Claudio Thomas c...@xmodus-systems.de wrote: Hi, as reaction of the following email: On 15.07.2014 15:05, Claudio Thomas wrote: Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] When to use Target Profile or Subtarget Hi, I'm adapting the Freescale MPC83xx platform, so that multiple devices can be selected. Actually the following boards are in use, but hard-coded over files or file-patches and not selectable be menuconfig - RouterBOARD 333 - RouterBOARD 600 This makes it unnecessary difficult to add new devices... ...I've wrote the in the subject mentioned patch (2014-07-21 15:48:12). Is there a reason why the patch is not committed yet? Should I change anything, like make only one profile for rb333+rb600 or is the coding style not as whiched? I would be glad to adapt the patch to be conform to the needs of OpenWrt. My goal is, that I would like to add the following boards: http://www.xmodus-systems.de/en/terminals/routers.html But to add them, it is necessary that the compilation of the kernelnames dtbImage.rb600 dtbImage.rb333 needs to be conditional. Actually they are unconditional. So, I'm glad to hear your comments what I could make better ob my changes or maybe also, why I should not change it at all. I see no technical reason why would it be required to make them conditional nor why would it be difficult to add new devices - so what are your problems? Hm, maybe the problem it's in me :-) and I'm to new to the openwrt project. The last time I've checked the compilation with included dtbImage.rb600 dtbImage.rb333 I were still running in compilation errors. This are already several month ago (r37942). The workaround at that time was to simple remove them from the Makefiles. The point is, that the board needs a different kernel and also a different package set. So my conclusion at that time was that if I already need a new target and profile I should encapsulate those kernelnames also in a profile. And this was my approach now: at first to encapsulate those kernelnames, than add a new target with profile definition, so that a clean (step by step) integration of the need changes could be done. Your Answer, that you don't see a technical reason for a conditional... makes me assume that the conclusion was wrong and that there must be a better way or that there is an error in the changes/implementations. I'm going to re-analyse the problem, so that I can give you a better answer to what are the problems that occur when both kernelnames exist in the makefile. Thank you for your time and consideration, Claudio ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
