| Message ID | 20191225143851.12368-1-foss@volatilesystems.org |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [OpenWrt-Devel,19.07] ramips: rename DIR-860L entries according to the new manufacturer / device spec | expand |
Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces@lists.openwrt.org] > On Behalf Of Stijn Segers > Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Dezember 2019 15:39 > To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [19.07] ramips: rename DIR-860L entries > according to the new manufacturer / device spec > > Most images follow the openwrt-target-subtarget-manufacturer-device > naming specification, but the D-Link DIR-860L rev B1 does not. This patch > brings it in line. > > Master had this updated a while ago, it's okay there. Though I'm a big fan of unification and made an effort to have this sorted out in master, I do not think backporting those device name changes is very helpful. This will create additional work, but effectively it will just move the "break" from 19.07/master to 18.06/19.07. As a cosmetic issue, it wouldn't be a candidate for backporting under normal circumstances, too. For further reasoning/discussion, refer to the following PR in GitHub, where the same question has already been discussed a month ago: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/2574#issuecomment-559460188 I will mark this PR as Rejected, I hope you accept my arguments and continue to submit contributions in the future. Best Adrian
mail@adrianschmutzler.de schreef op 27 december 2019 00:11:34 CET: >Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces@lists.openwrt.org] >> On Behalf Of Stijn Segers >> Sent: Mittwoch, 25. Dezember 2019 15:39 >> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >> Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [19.07] ramips: rename DIR-860L >entries >> according to the new manufacturer / device spec >> >> Most images follow the openwrt-target-subtarget-manufacturer-device >> naming specification, but the D-Link DIR-860L rev B1 does not. This >patch >> brings it in line. >> >> Master had this updated a while ago, it's okay there. > >Though I'm a big fan of unification and made an effort to have this >sorted out in master, I do not think backporting those device name >changes is very helpful. This will create additional work, but >effectively it will just move the "break" from 19.07/master to >18.06/19.07. > >As a cosmetic issue, it wouldn't be a candidate for backporting under >normal circumstances, too. Well it was worth trying 😁 Stijn > >For further reasoning/discussion, refer to the following PR in GitHub, >where the same question has already been discussed a month ago: > >https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/2574#issuecomment-559460188 > >I will mark this PR as Rejected, I hope you accept my arguments and >continue to submit contributions in the future. > >Best > >Adrian
Hi, > >> Master had this updated a while ago, it's okay there. > > > >Though I'm a big fan of unification and made an effort to have this > >sorted out in master, I do not think backporting those device name > >changes is very helpful. This will create additional work, but > >effectively it will just move the "break" from 19.07/master to > >18.06/19.07. > > > >As a cosmetic issue, it wouldn't be a candidate for backporting under > >normal circumstances, too. > > Well it was worth trying 😁 > > Stijn Somebody marked it as "Accepted" in patchwork. So, either that was a mistake, or you are lucky and another committer had a different opinion on this. Let's see ... Best Adrian
Op vrijdag 27 december 2019 om 20:34 schreef mail@adrianschmutzler.de: > Hi, > >> >> Master had this updated a while ago, it's okay there. >> > >> >Though I'm a big fan of unification and made an effort to have this >> >sorted out in master, I do not think backporting those device name >> >changes is very helpful. This will create additional work, but >> >effectively it will just move the "break" from 19.07/master to >> >18.06/19.07. >> > >> >As a cosmetic issue, it wouldn't be a candidate for backporting >> under >> >normal circumstances, too. >> >> Well it was worth trying 😁 >> >> Stijn > > Somebody marked it as "Accepted" in patchwork. So, either that was a > mistake, or you are lucky and another committer had a different > opinion on this. Let's see ... > > Best > > Adrian Hi Adrian, I got such a message, yes, but I assume it's a mixup somewhere. I haven't seen it in anyone's tree. Cheers (and happy holidays) Stijn > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/01_leds b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/01_leds index e5706dd5ef..31f7220eee 100755 --- a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/01_leds +++ b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/01_leds @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ dlink,dwr-922-e2) ucidef_set_led_netdev "signalstrength" "signalstrength" "$boardname:green:sigstrength" "wwan0" "link" ucidef_set_led_netdev "4g" "4g" "$boardname:green:4g" "wwan0" "tx rx" ;; -dir-860l-b1) +dlink,dir-860l-b1) ucidef_set_led_netdev "wan" "wan" "$boardname:green:net" "eth0.2" ;; dlink,dir-878-a1) diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network index 465ee33434..c46b26e790 100755 --- a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network +++ b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ ramips_setup_interfaces() ucidef_add_switch "switch0" \ "1:lan:3" "2:lan:4" "3:lan:1" "4:lan:2" "0:wan" "6@eth0" ;; - dir-860l-b1|\ + dlink,dir-860l-b1|\ elecom,wrc-1167ghbk2-s|\ elecom,wrc-2533gst|\ elecom,wrc-1900gst|\ @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ ramips_setup_macs() dch-m225) lan_mac=$(mtd_get_mac_ascii factory lanmac) ;; - dir-860l-b1) + dlink,dir-860l-b1) lan_mac=$(mtd_get_mac_ascii factory lanmac) wan_mac=$(mtd_get_mac_ascii factory wanmac) ;; diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix-checksum b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix-checksum index 54deb5b2e0..40746c6af4 100644 --- a/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix-checksum +++ b/target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix-checksum @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ case "$board" in cy-swr1100 | \ dch-m225 | \ dir-645 | \ -dir-860l-b1) +dlink,dir-860l-b1) fix_checksum seama ;; dlink,dap-1522-a1) diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/image/mt7621.mk b/target/linux/ramips/image/mt7621.mk index 2af4b21622..53d00d31bd 100644 --- a/target/linux/ramips/image/mt7621.mk +++ b/target/linux/ramips/image/mt7621.mk @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ define Device/asus_rt-ac57u endef TARGET_DEVICES += asus_rt-ac57u -define Device/dir-860l-b1 +define Device/dlink_dir-860l-b1 $(Device/seama) DTS := DIR-860L-B1 BLOCKSIZE := 64k @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ define Device/dir-860l-b1 DEVICE_TITLE := D-Link DIR-860L B1 DEVICE_PACKAGES := kmod-mt76x2 kmod-usb3 kmod-usb-ledtrig-usbport wpad-basic endef -TARGET_DEVICES += dir-860l-b1 +TARGET_DEVICES += dlink_dir-860l-b1 define Device/dlink_dir-878-a1 DTS := DIR-878-A1
Most images follow the openwrt-target-subtarget-manufacturer-device naming specification, but the D-Link DIR-860L rev B1 does not. This patch brings it in line. Master had this updated a while ago, it's okay there. Signed-off-by: Stijn Segers <foss@volatilesystems.org> --- target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/01_leds | 2 +- target/linux/ramips/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network | 4 ++-- .../linux/ramips/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix-checksum | 2 +- target/linux/ramips/image/mt7621.mk | 4 ++-- 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)