John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: > > On 03/12/2018 19:04, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > (openwrt-adm dropped from this subthread) > > > > Em 03/12/2018 15:29, Stijn Segers escreveu: > >> Op ma, 3 dec 2018 om 5:51 , schreef John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org>: > >>> The idea was to fade out ar71xx after the next release and only accept > >>> new boards for ath79. However i'd been fine taking that step as of now. > >>> i have noticed that the ath79 patches far out number the ar71xx > >>> ones. we > >>> have lots of patches that migrate boards and i have seen a few new > >>> boards added only to ath79. lets see how the thread goes, looking > >>> fwd to > >>> hearing opinions... > > > >> Rather than further duplicating efforts, I'd 'encourage'* ath79 only > >> submissions. > > > > Is there a viable way to "sysupgrade" from ar71xx to ath79? > > > > Even if it would require a model-by-model "update map" for the > > lower-level stuff (LEDs, switch ports?, etc), that would be valuable. > > Otherwise, it will be difficult for people with fleets of ar71xx > > devices to remotely switch them to ath79... > > > afaik this works ootb, if not its easy to make work. it was > indeed one of the primary concerns in the early stages of the > task
Compat names are in the makefiles for at least some of the targets that are known to upgrade nicely, where they're not directly compatible by name alone. Cheers, Karl P
signature.html
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
