On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:32:43PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 08.07.2020 21:34, Paul Spooren wrote: > > I think there is a policy for new DT devices to use the compatible string > > as profile. > > > > Multiple targets contain the following line in the target Makefile, which > > automatically adds the profile name as supported device: > > > > SUPPORTED_DEVICES := $(subst _,$(comma),$(1)) > > > > So ideally for all devices using DT, the profile and compatible string are > > the same except for '_' replaced by ','. > > > > For instance, the "Linksys WRT3200ACM" has the profile ID > > `linksys_wrt3200acm` and the automatically added compatible string > > `linksys,wrt3200acm`. So if that device wanted to search the > > `mvebu/cortexa9/profiles.json` for available sysupgrades, it takes the > > first entry from /proc/device-tree/compatible, replaces ',' with '_' find > > images in profiles.json['profiles']['linksys_wrt3200acm']['images']. > > > > For cases where DT compatible and OpenWrt profile ID/name where different > > either one was patched[0]. > > There are still few exceptions like: > linksys-ea9500 vs. compatible = "linksys,panamera" > luxul-xwr-3150 vs. compatible = "luxul,xwr-3150-v1" > luxul-xbr-4500 vs. compatible = "luxul,xbr-4500-v1" > > This is a bit of problem because: > 1. I can't change "panamera" to "ea9500" as I was explicitly asked to > stick to "panamera" by Imre when upstreaming that DTS
I agree we should respect the artistic preferences of contributors to some degree. However, in this case, is there any reason for that somehow secretive naming scheme beyond personal preference? Having a consistent and easy to understand codebase also weights a bit higher than that to me. Cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
