Re: [LEDE-DEV] clarifying how trivial it is to define a couple new IMX6QDL targets

2017-09-30 Thread Florian Fainelli
Le 09/30/17 à 05:16, Robert P. J. Day a écrit : > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> On 09/29/2017 10:33 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> >>> i was just looking at using latest LEDE to define a couple new >>> IMX6QDL targets, and after a few minutes, it looks as if, at least >>> to

Re: [LEDE-DEV] clarifying how trivial it is to define a couple new IMX6QDL targets

2017-09-30 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 09/29/2017 10:33 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > i was just looking at using latest LEDE to define a couple new > > IMX6QDL targets, and after a few minutes, it looks as if, at least > > to get a minimal bootable system and as long as i'm not

Re: [LEDE-DEV] clarifying how trivial it is to define a couple new IMX6QDL targets

2017-09-29 Thread Florian Fainelli
On 09/29/2017 10:33 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i was just looking at using latest LEDE to define a couple new > IMX6QDL targets, and after a few minutes, it looks as if, at least to > get a minimal bootable system and as long as i'm not doing anything > drastically weird, it should be wicke

[LEDE-DEV] clarifying how trivial it is to define a couple new IMX6QDL targets

2017-09-29 Thread Robert P. J. Day
i was just looking at using latest LEDE to define a couple new IMX6QDL targets, and after a few minutes, it looks as if, at least to get a minimal bootable system and as long as i'm not doing anything drastically weird, it should be wickedly simple and i just want to verify that. it's all bas