On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > On 08/30/2011 06:57 AM, Mark Deneen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:34 AM, LEO Airwarosu Yoichi Shinoda >> <shin...@jaist.ac.jp> wrote: >>> >>> On 2011/08/30, at 6:13, Peter Naulls wrote: >>> >>> I have an immediate need to support v1 and v2 hardware in one image. As >>> "products" they are essentially identical, as well as in user space in >>> Linux, >>> and deploying a image which is all but identical to support 2 machines >>> makes >>> no sense to me. >>> >>> Are you sure that WZR-HP-G300NH/NH1 and WZR-HP-G300NH2 are >>> (essentially) identical? >>> >>> Here are brief description of chip sets used in WZR-HP*. >>> WZR-HP-G300NH1 AR9132 + AR9100 + RTL8366* >>> (WZR-HP-G300NH, WZR-HP-G301NH(JP market), WZR-HP-G302NH(JP market)) >>> >>> WZR-HP-G300NH2 AR7242 + AR9280 + AR8316 >>> >>> and just FYI, >>> WHR-HP-G300N AR7240 + AR9280 + AR8316 >>> WZR-HP-AG300H AR7161 + AR9220 + AR9223 + AR8316 >> >> >> I believe that he is saying that Buffalo markets and sells the >> WZR-HP-G300NH2 as the WZR-HP-G300NH. That is, the boxes are identical >> and you don't know what you have until you open it. > > They are clearly different SoCs and different peripherals, but they > are the same size RAM and flash, same exterior and connectors, and > the kernel that runs on them by default is identical - differing only in > the parameter passed. As for the 300/301, they differ only in > network chip, and that support was merged a few weeks ago. > > The AG300H is different enough in specs that you could argue > a different kernel, or perhaps not. If we end up using that > hardware later for our product, I'll be looking at merging that > too, but we'll see. >
The AG300H is far more similar to the G300NH2 than the G300NH is to the G300NH2. -M _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
