I use this on two devices. Flashed by changing bootloader from tftpd image. Works like a charm. I don't agree with removal.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Sylwester Petela <ssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > W dniu 21.07.2018 o 10:43, Thibaut pisze: > >> >>> Le 21 juil. 2018 à 10:17, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21/07/18 09:44, Thibaut wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Le 21 juil. 2018 à 09:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 19/07/18 20:08, Thibaut wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19 Jul 2018, at 19:52, Mathias Kresin <d...@kresin.me> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018-07-19 19:26 GMT+02:00 Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> faf94d926e2810f895f2a98d4a49ee2fe8f673e8 added "support" for a >>>>>>>> hacked >>>>>>>> device where the original boot loader (routerboot) has been replaced >>>>>>>> by u-boot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Support for this device with stock bootloader is possible (as >>>>>>>> evidenced >>>>>>>> by support for the RBM33G), and conflicts with this code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remove code before release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI, I already NAK'ed the very same patch on github. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do agree that it can be done better by not requiring the >>>>>>> replacement >>>>>>> of the bootloader. Nevertheless, support for this board is already >>>>>>> shipped since LEDE-17.01 and I don't agree to drop support for a >>>>>>> board >>>>>>> without providing an alternative/fixed/better image. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to clarify: this is not “support”. This is a user created custom >>>>>> hack that applies only to their modified board. >>>>>> >>>>>> T. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> openwrt-devel mailing list >>>>>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>>>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I agree that proper support for none modified boards is far better and >>>>> I am always for having such support in tree. what i am failing to >>>>> understand >>>>> here is why it is so important to remove this support or none-support >>>>> patch >>>>> from the tree ? in general our stance was that if there is at least one >>>>> user >>>>> we'll try to carry the functionality as long as we can. So why not remove >>>>> this when a better replacement is in place ? >>>> >>>> Because there will be no replacement and I certainly don’t want to >>>> confuse the end users into thinking there will be one. >>>> >>>> I don’t know yet another way to say this more clearly: this patch >>>> doesn’t “drop support”: support was _never there_. There will be no >>>> “replacement”: there is no upgrade path. >>>> >>>> What this patch does is dropping bad code. What there will be is proper, >>>> correct NEW support for the hardware this code /pretends/ to offer support >>>> for but doesn’t. >>>> >>>> At the end of the day the device covered by this code is a /different/ >>>> device than the one support will be provided for. It’s A Frankendevice, >>>> that >>>> by the way doesn’t even pass the “hardware available?” question. The >>>> installation instructions on the wiki do not even provision a way to revert >>>> the hack. >>>> >>>> On a side note, if it’s a policy to support every user hack and >>>> bastardized hardware for which there is only one user _in tree_, then we >>>> have a fundamental difference in opinion and I’m afraid openwrt is then >>>> inflicting on itself a maintenance nightmare it can’t afford. >>>> >>>> My 2c, >>>> T >>> >>> well, that certainly killed the discussion .... >> >> Trying hard to explain my reasoning kills the discussion? I’m frankly >> baffled. > > What John and others probably meant is that killing device support > (replacing u-boot IMHO isn't "hardware mod" as You described(look at lantiq > devices)) isn't best approach, instead if You have hardware in discussion > You can help develop better support for questioned device and REPLACE/FIX > it's implementation in OpenWRT. > > Every device hack/introduction to OpenWRT has to began somewhere. > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openwrt-devel mailing list >> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
