13.08.2018 19:34, Mathias Kresin пишет:
2018-08-13 18:28 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Tunin <hanipouspi...@gmail.com>:
Add support for the ar71xx supported Tp_link MR-3040 v2 to ath79.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Tunin <hanipouspi...@gmail.com>
---
.../linux/ath79/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network | 1 +
.../linux/ath79/dts/ar9331_tplink_tl-mr3040-v2.dts | 161 +++++++++++++++++++++
target/linux/ath79/image/tiny-tp-link.mk | 10 ++
3 files changed, 172 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 target/linux/ath79/dts/ar9331_tplink_tl-mr3040-v2.dts
diff --git a/target/linux/ath79/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network
b/target/linux/ath79/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network
index 9e315ee..bfbc1ac 100755
--- a/target/linux/ath79/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network
+++ b/target/linux/ath79/base-files/etc/board.d/02_network
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ ath79_setup_interfaces()
tplink,re450-v2|\
tplink,tl-mr10u|\
tplink,tl-mr3020-v1|\
+ tplink,tl-mr3040-v2|\
tplink,tl-wr703n|\
ubnt,unifiac-lite|\
ubnt,unifiac-mesh|\
diff --git a/target/linux/ath79/dts/ar9331_tplink_tl-mr3040-v2.dts
b/target/linux/ath79/dts/ar9331_tplink_tl-mr3040-v2.dts
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d72839e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/target/linux/ath79/dts/ar9331_tplink_tl-mr3040-v2.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/dts-v1/;
+
+#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
+
+#include "ar9331.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+ model = "TP-Link TL-MR3040 V2";
+ compatible = "tplink,tl-mr3040-v2", "qca,ar9331";
+
+ leds {
+ compatible = "gpio-leds";
+
+ wlan {
+ label = "tp-link:green:wlan";
+ gpios = <&gpio 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
+ default-state = "off";
+ linux,default-trigger = "phy0tpt";
+ };
+
+ lan {
+ label = "tp-link:green:lan";
+ gpios = <&gpio 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
+ default-state = "off";
+ linux,default-trigger = "netdev:eth0";
I'm not sure if we should do it this way. I already dislike the
phy0tpt trigger in the devicetree source files, as it makes assumption
on how the interface is named in linux/in which order the wireless is
registered.
Something similar to the way the usbport triggers are handled - with
device name evaluation during runtime - would make more sense to me.
Any opinions about it?
Mathias
In this case the device has only one Ethernet port. In other cases I
agree that this is not the best idea to assign LEDs this way.
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
