On Monday, 24 June 2024 14:10:18 CEST Leith Bade wrote: > On 24 Jun 2024 at 20:32, Diederik de Haas <didi.deb...@cknow.org> wrote: > > > This likely due to my unfamiliarity with building the Debian kernel. > > I will eventually manage to figure it out. Part of the problem is that > there is a lot of different advice around the place and a lot of it is out > of date.
https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/kernel-handbook/ or the offline version in the debian-kernel-handbook package *should* give you the proper advice. If not, then that's a bug. > > > The device tree is a modified version of the > > > upstream linux device tree file "mediatek/mt7986a-bananapi-bpi-r3.dtb" > > > > Can you share those changes? I analyzed and enabled modules purely on > > what's available upstream. > > Yes, I just need to tidy them up into a series of git commits. I don't > think I had to change anything module related, Ok, I use the "compatible" string to figure out what modules are needed. > the main issue was the GPIO pin conflicts. I plan to coordinate with the > original author of the file (who is on the Banana Pi forum) to work towards > getting them submitted to Linux. Awesome > Thanks for the advice. The patches I have seen are fairly minor - mainly > adding another special case to match the SFP name string. > > I think the upstream concern stems from the way these vendors of these > cheap SFP modules are just programming so many different model strings to > rebadge them as they see fit. There is even a documented case where two > devices from two different vendors have the exact same ID strings, but two > different incompatible PHY chips inside. sigh. I can understand upstream's concern. > > I'm still missing a "Tested-by:" tag for my changes ;-P > > Tested-by: Leith Bade <le...@bade.nz> Haha, thanks :) Cheers, Diederik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
