On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:19 AM Adrian Schmutzler <m...@adrianschmutzler.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On > > Behalf Of Russell Senior > > Sent: Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2020 11:20 > > To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH RFC] ath79: add support for the ar7240 > version > > of the ubiquiti bullet > > > > > > The Ubiquiti Bullet M2HP come in two flavors, based on ar7240 and > > ar7241. Both are supported by ar71xx, despite the different SoCs. The > > ath79 target, however, currently supports only the ar7241. The ar7240 > > version apparently has a differently wired ethernet interface and the > > ar7241-based image comes up on the ar7240-based versions without a > > working ethernet interface. > > > > This is an attempt to support both flavors of ubnt-bullet-m, > > separately. Some of the choices I made may be considered dubious and/or > > harmful. > > Interesting. Do you have any indications whether this will also affect the > Loco > M and Picostation XM devices? > I have some Loco's deployed (all of them are AR7241) but no picostations, so I don't know about the latter. > > What's the base for the v0/v1 distinction? Is that visible to the user > somehow? > I fear that meaningful naming will be the biggest problem here... > v0 and v1 mostly come from the need to distinguish between them. You could think of the digit as the least significant digit of the SoC. We could make them -7240 and -7241 instead of -v0 and -v1 to be slightly clearer what the names mean, but that seemed ugly. And, no, as far as I know, the SoC is not indicated on the exterior of the device at all. The user will have to figure out the right version to use somehow. > > Best > > Adrian > >
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
