On 29 October 2014 at 23:38, Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 October 2014 22:30, Imre Kaloz <ka...@openwrt.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:59:25 +0200, Maxime Ripard >> <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> >>> This patch adds a new profile for the Mirabox, and fixes a few things >>> along the way, mostly because of the Mirabox NAND page size that >>> differs from the other mvebu boards (and most of the boards supported >>> by OpenWRT apparently). >> >> >> At first look they look fine, except the UBI* options in the profiles. We >> always want to build images for all boards, so I would keep those in the >> image Makefile and keep the profiles for the bare minimum like on other >> targets. > > Imre, could you point/prepare a well-written target Makefile using > multiple UBI_OPTS, please? I'm sure that would help a lot to > understand how it should look like in the perfect scenario. And > hopefully mvebu could follow it.
Imre, this isn't OK. Maxime followed scenario used by other targets, but we refuse to apply it, because there may be a better way. A way that no one implemented and that no one described. By ignoring patches for months we will only make ppl turn around instead of getting more contributors. Please *describe* how UBI options should be handled differently or *accept* patches as they are and re-design that UBI thing later. -- Rafał _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
