Hi, I'm repeating here my previous reply sent to you in private in reply to your private mail.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:08:13PM +0100, Cezary Jackiewicz wrote: > Dnia 2013-01-09, o godz. 20:51:04 > Paul Fertser <fercer...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > Cezary Jackiewicz <cezary.jackiew...@gmail.com> writes: > > > +define Profile/3G300M > > > + NAME:=Tenda 3G300M > > > + PACKAGES:=\ > > > + kmod-usb-core kmod-usb-rt305x-dwc_otg \ > > > + kmod-ledtrig-usbdev > > > +endef > > > > What is the motivation to have a dedicated profile that's exactly the > > same as the default one? > > To can be selected only this device. Well, yes, but is it really that useful? Generating extra images takes very little extra time comparing to generating a single one. But the profile list becomes bigger, more files to maintain etc. > > Can you please take a look at http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/3132/ > > , do you know of any reason do not do it the same way here? > > Because your patch is not yet included into mainline? This is patch for > current sources, if anyone enters this change, it may be rewritten. I gave a link to my patch trying to explain that i think you can generate a single image by using MkImage thus avoiding code duplication and unneeded complexity. > > BTW, do you think kernel_size_4M and rootfs_size_4M should be defined > > and used for all the mtdlayout_4M targets instead of hardcoding those > > numbers? > > IMO yes, it should be, as generic_8m. Would you like to do it yourself or do you prefer having someone else do it? Good luck! -- Be free, use free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) software! mailto:fercer...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
